Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

The right honourable Sir Robert Walker, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe, of Gestingthorpe in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and the Lord Scott of Foscote.

Biofuels

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an unpaid president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils and as a farmer.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to develop commercial biodiesel and bioethanol production from mainstream United Kingdom agricultural resources.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government recognise that biofuels have potential for UK agriculture and can deliver environmental benefits. The green fuel challenge was an initiative designed to stimulate industry to come forward with practical proposals for alternative fuels. Following the challenge a new, reduced rate of duty for biodiesel was announced.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but would she perhaps agree with the premise that the polluter should pay? If one could have a slight increase on the likes of LPG, that could balance a reduction on the rate at which biofuels are taxed.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord may not have uniform support throughout the country for increasing tax on other forms of fuel, if recent public expressions of concern on that subject are taken into account. As we explained in the "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy, we will continue to keep transport taxation under review and look at the taxation policy avenues that are available to incentivise the further use and development of both low-carbon vehicles and fuels.
	The Chancellor sets rates of duty Budget by Budget and has to take into account a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors. We are committed to looking at avenues to promote the use and development of low-carbon vehicles and fuels.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, following that slightly disappointing and perhaps slightly feeble Answer from the noble Baroness the Minister—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Greaves: My Lords, that is quite uncharacteristic of the noble Baroness.
	Is it not a scandal that £184 million a year is being wasted by paying farmers to leave their land fallow in the form of set-aside when that land could be used for growing crops that could be used for biodiesel or bioethanol, which would help to meet our reduction of carbon requirements and probably slightly reduce the cost of fuel?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am, as always, deeply sorry if I have been feeble in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As he knows, feebleness is not something that I normally seek to achieve. We have very strong policies in terms of encouraging the development of biomass and biodiesel crops. As part of an overall strategy, we take into account the benefits of the fuel's production and its effect on greenhouse gases. However, government must balance that against other interests in terms of other forms of renewable energy development.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that the Government rejected the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to establish within government a champion for non-food crops in order to take forward this whole area and that instead they proposed a forum? Does she also recollect that at that time the Government fully accepted that there was great potential for industrial and other products from non-food crops, including from set-aside land? One has to ask why it has not happened. Why have the hopes expressed by the Government two years ago in their reply to the Select Committee not yet produced anything?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, knows that the Government have developed a wide range of different strategies within this area and that they take advice from a wide range of sources. His argument that the Government are doing little can be resisted because of the wide range of issues that the Government have taken into account.
	At present, we are in the middle of producing an energy White Paper, which will be published early next year, in order to consider further strategies. However, perhaps I may simply refer to the current ongoing programmes. Energy efficiency best-practice schemes are in progress, as is energy labelling of domestic appliances. A bio-energy infrastructure scheme is being set up with £3 million of funding from the £100 million allocation announced by the Prime Minister last year. I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that that is inadequate, as he visibly does. However, I believe that the range of strategies, including the development of combined heat and power projects, is in line with some of the recommendations of the Select Committee to which he referred.

Lord Carter: My Lords, is the problem that the Government are still concerned with the reports produced some years ago and that they favour biomass in the form of coppice, which takes at least six or seven years to mature? Taking into account the present state of agriculture, it is very hard for a farmer to consider an investment which will not pay off for six or seven years, compared with the possible advantage of biodiesel or bioethanol, which come from annual crops.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right that there is scope within these fields. However, I can say in response to the three noble Lords who spoke before my noble friend that the new and renewable energy research and development programme, worth £55.5 million, is an enhanced R&D programme and stimulates development over a wide range of areas. My noble friend is wrong to believe that we are concentrating on one particular area of development. On off-shore wind development, £74 million has been spent; on energy crops and biomass, £81.5 million; on photovoltaics, £20 million; on wave and tidal energy, £5 million; and on biomass heat, £3 million. In addition, a range of projects, including a highly developed package, comes from sources such as the Performance and Innovation Unit, the New Opportunities Fund, DEFRA and the DTI working together.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Germany 500 million gallons of such fuel were burned last year and that the Germans expect to burn 750 million gallons this year? In view of the fact that such fuel reduces by between 80 and 90 per cent the carcinogenic content of exhaust emissions, should it not be given some fiscal advantage so that it is used more generally?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we obviously recognise the need for fiscal advantage. That is precisely why the differential rate of fuel duty was levied by this Government.

Lord Ezra: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think we must move on now.

Extremist Organisations: Rallies and Assemblies

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation to enable police authorities in the United Kingdom to ban rallies of extremist organisations when there is apprehension that these will lead to racial incitement and breaches of the peace.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully understand the fears that events of this type could be used to spread racial hatred if allowed to do so. I believe, however, that the current legislation on public order and incitement to racial hatred has so far proved sufficient to deal with the problems posed by gatherings of this kind. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider this judgment in the light of any emerging evidence that suggested that the powers were inadequate. The powers contained in the Public Order Act 1986 will be kept under constant review.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. However, is it not totally inconsistent, unreasonable and unacceptable that the authorities have and use the power to ban marches and processions when they have good reason to expect breaches of the peace but have no such power to ban rallies and assemblies? For example, at the Al Muhajarun rally in Trafalgar Square on 25th August the police expected trouble. The authorities banned the march, but they did not ban the rally because they were unable to do so. There was trouble because the Nazis and the fascists turned out and there was violence, as expected. In those circumstances, will my noble and learned friend reconsider the law to see whether the authorities should have the power to ban rallies and assemblies as they have the power to ban processions and marches?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend is right in his summary of the law. The police have power to apply to a local authority to ban a procession, but they do not have such a power to apply to ban a rally, although they can apply to the local authority to impose conditions on a rally. The law is as it is because in the 1980s the Government took the view that while some rallies are more difficult to police, and therefore are more likely to bring trouble, problems do not arise to the same extent in relation to static rallies.
	We take the view that one should intervene with civil liberties as little as possible. In relation to the events in August in Trafalgar Square to which my noble friend referred, a local by-law was used to ban it. The Metropolitan Police did not make an application, as they could have, to impose conditions on the rally; yes, there was a right-wing counter demonstration; there was some disorder; but it was not considered sufficient to justify even an application for conditions. Although, as I have said, we shall keep the situation under review, we consider that the correct approach is to balance the intrusion against civil liberties with what is necessary for public protection.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I recognise the legitimate concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but does the Minister appreciate that many are concerned that our law on public order can already be used to prevent people exercising their right of free speech in a public place? They were amazed when, for example, a man voicing his views about homosexuality was prosecuted rather than those abusing him and throwing missiles at him.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure to what incident the noble Lord refers. As I made clear in my Answer, we regard the right way to approach such matters as being to intrude on civil liberties as little as possible. That is the approach that we currently take in relation to the powers of the police to apply to ban rallies. We do not believe that that is necessary or appropriate. I shall write to the noble Lord about the particular incident to which he has referred. I am sorry that I do not know the detail of it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in further considering this matter, and with deep respect to my noble friend, will the Government bear in mind that the police already have more than enough to do, are undermanned in many parts of the country, and that their time should not be taken up in giving protection to small gangs of people who are behaving in an anti-racial way or stimulating disorder?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the obligation of the police is to ensure that public order is preserved. That is a very important role of the police. I am happy to tell noble Lords that there are more policemen in this country than ever before, indeed since records began in 1921.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Does the Minister accept that the recent demonstration by the fundamentalists and the right-wing extremists was obnoxious? Does he further accept that at present the police have powers simply to react to situations rather than to ban marches proactively? Therefore, would such a move require a change in the law?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the condemnation of bodies whose aim is to provoke racial hatred, but for the reasons that I gave at the outset, I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that it is necessary to give the police power to apply to a local authority for a ban in relation to a rally. I believe that we should move to that stage only if there is evidence that it is necessary to preserve public order. Although I have indicated that the matter is kept under constant review, at the current time I do not believe that there is a basis for saying that that is the right course.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend have any plans to issue further guidance to police in localities such as east Lancashire where neo-fascist organisations are often provocative in saying what they will do? The police, with the local authorities, have a difficult time working out what powers they have. The previous question referred to the police being proactive rather than reactive. Are any guidance notes being reissued to help with the situation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am well aware of the issue to which my noble friend refers; namely, the extent to which racist groups can provoke difficulties, particularly in the east Lancashire area. In that respect one of the most important points is that the local authority and the police stay closely in touch with each other and have a joint approach to dealing with the issue. I do not know the position on specific guidance so perhaps I can write to my noble friend on that point.

Criminal Records Bureau

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date and for what reason the Criminal Records Bureau decided to change the method of data processing of applications for enhanced disclosure from that originally specified.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the original model for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was based on a call-centre, telephone-based and online application route, with capacity to deal with individual paper applications. That arrangement was expected to be convenient for applicants and would reduce errors. It was also in line with the Government's e-government objectives. However, during extensive consultation with registered bodies and employers from January to June 2001, there was strong pressure from them to introduce a full-scale paper-based application. Consequently, in May 2001, the CRB agreed to introduce more extensive capacity to deal with paper-based applications. That was negotiated with a contractor between May and October 2001.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that response, I ask him to explain why the Home Office and the Criminal Records Bureau accepted the ICT system from Capita designed to deal with most applications by phone before asking its known customers how they wanted them dealt with, which turned out to be by paper. After similar failures in IT contracts signed off by the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Passport Agency and the Immigration Service, to name but a few, should there not be an immediate review of procurement practice to ensure that systems are fit for the purpose before the start button is pressed and the results of such a review published?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in regard to the focus on a call-centre, telephone-based approach, both the contractor and the CRB thought that was appropriate, but before they went live there was detailed consultation with the clients of what was to become the CRB. That took place between January and June 2001, which was approximately nine months before the process went live. It was sensible to hold that consultation before it went live. It led to the discussions between the contractor and the CRB during the period that I indicated in my original Answer and the change that was then introduced in relation to the system of dealing with applications.
	On the problems about ICT contracts generally, yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. In both public sector ICT contracts and private sector ICT contracts, there are frequently great difficulties in making them work at an early stage. In organisations such as the Government, but also in the private sector, we have a huge amount to learn about how they are best introduced. We have an Office of Government Commerce and a series of NAO reports looking at that kind of issue. We have a huge number of lessons to learn. But please do not be under the illusion that this relates only to the public sector. Anyone in this House who has been engaged in the introduction of major ICT contracts in the private sector may well have experience of similar problems.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the importance of such disclosures is not questioned; it is the process. Are the Government aware of the chaos that has resulted in the appointment of teachers, clergy and all kinds of voluntary workers such as youth leaders and Sunday school teachers—and the anxiety that it causes, not just to the people concerned but to the communities around them? We need to have some action to make the process speedier.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am fully aware of the particular problems referred to by the right reverend Prelate. The aim of introducing the CRB was that there should be reliable vetting of people who work with children and vulnerable people. I do not think that anyone in the House would disagree with that outcome. The process of introducing that has been problematic, particularly in relation to the ICT. It has been running since March, but it is not running properly at the moment. A great deal of effort is being put in to make it right, in particular, by bringing in three outside independent people to look at the system and to make sure that it is being done in the best possible way to reach the conclusion that I know the right reverend Prelate wants. Please bear with us in relation to that. Do not be unrealistic about how long these things take to get right. We all know the aim that we want. Please bear with us to get to the aim that we are after.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain to the House the relevance of a question that applicants have to answer about personal details of their bank and building society accounts, which includes the sort code, account numbers and the personal confidential word that they have to use in order to secure information from their bank accounts? What is the relevance of all of that to securing information about a background of paedophilia and safety to work with children and adults? Can the noble and learned Lord also say whether much of the processing still takes place in Delhi, India?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first question, a very important aspect of what is done is that people are appropriately identified before any checks are made, so that the right person is identified.
	As to the second question, the process involves material being sent to India. In India the details of paper forms are entered into the information system. That is done extremely quickly and effectively so that the system can then help in the process of identification.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that we should not be unrealistic about the time it will take to put matters right. Could he be realistic and tell us how long he expects it to take, because while this is going on, it is causing enormous problems, not only to schools but to hospitals, doctors' practices and so on?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the time it will take, the three independent people appointed to look at the particular issue are doing so now. I do not want to create any false expectations, but I shall keep the House informed as to their views.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is it not about time that the Government started to get things right the first time, not only in this case, but as regards A-levels and everything else that they have got wrong, ending up with disaster and huge expense to the public purse?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that everyone in the House will agree that we are seeking to achieve a right and identifiable outcome. The noble Baroness will be aware that a number of contracts were entered into by the government of whom she was a member, including the one for the benefits card which had to be scrapped. I think that one should be realistic rather than political in relation to these matters.

Dermatology

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps (a) to increase the number of dermatologists in National Health Service hospitals and (b) to ensure that general practitioners are better informed about dermatology.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are increasing the number of dermatologists. At March 2002, there were 387 consultants in dermatology, an increase of 24 per cent since 1997. GPs are expected to keep their professional skills up to date and to keep abreast of developments in areas such as dermatology. The appointment of GPs with special interest in dermatology has considerable potential in that area.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a large proportion of the public—one-third—suffers from one form or another of skin disease, whether it is cancer, psoriasis, alopecia or one of a number of things, yet it is increasingly difficult to get proper medical advice from the NHS? Does he recognise that there are some 96 vacant consultant dermatology posts in NHS hospitals and that whatever he has said about GPs, the truth is that many of them have had no training at all in the treatment of skin disease? What does he intend to do about it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that this is a big issue for many patients. My understanding is that skin conditions account for 15 to 20 per cent of all GP consultations. I have explained that there has been more than a 20 per cent increase in the number of consultants since the Government came into office.
	I disagree with the noble Baroness in relation to general practitioners. The fact is that the new scheme designating some GPs as having a special interest in dermatology and other clinical conditions is an excellent way of using the skills of GPs in this area and will enable more people to be treated within primary care. If one adds that to increases in the number of specialist registrars and the use of nurse-led clinics, I am confident that we shall be able to meet some of these pressures.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Government's recognition of the need for a major expansion in the consultant establishment is very welcome. But does the Minister accept that what applies to dermatology applies to practically all specialties in medicine. There is a great shortage of consultants across all these specialties. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient specialist registrars are in training to fill the new consultant vacancies as they arise?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, we are determined to expand the number of specialist registrars and consultants. We have seen a large increase in the number of consultants. In 1997 we had just over 21,000 consultants in the National Health Service. The number has now risen to 26,350. Of course it takes time to train consultants; it takes many years. That is why we have engaged in a major programme of international recruitment. I accept that the key issue facing the National Health Service is capacity. Our ability to attract more doctors and more nurses and to build more facilities is crucial. But I am confident that we are on the right lines and that we will deliver the NHS Plan.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to skin cancer. Its incidence has risen twofold over the past decade. Public awareness of sun protection is extremely important. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the abolition of the sun protection awareness campaign along with the Health Education Authority. The Minister will be aware that there is a proposal in the department for the reinstatement of that campaign. Can he say whether or not it will be reinstated by the department?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are matters which of course are always being considered. I agree that encouraging the public to take proper precautions should always be part of a public health programme. Much can be done locally. We would also expect that as primary care trusts take forward their public health programmes, this is an issue they would consider for local health promotion campaigns.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that dermatology is a speciality in which telemedicine can be both cheaply and effectively employed to provide speedier diagnosis for patients and support for GPs and others in primary care? Given some of the problems that have been described, will he undertake to ensure that the potential of this technology for assisting in those problems is fully explored by the department?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am keen for telemedicine to be developed in the health service. It enables us to create networks of care that cross the boundaries between primary, secondary and tertiary care. We have a number of actions on pilots in dermatology that are helping to reorganise and reform services. Telemedicine is certainly one of the factors being considered in some of those pilot programmes.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that simple cuts and abrasions may turn into long-lasting ulcers, especially in the case of elderly people, and that the health service should be prepared for an increase in such skin disorders in an ageing population?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that we need carefully to consider trends in particular illnesses to ensure that the National Health Service can meet the demands that will be placed on it. Another action that the Government have taken has been to refer the whole issue of skin disease to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce clinical guidelines for the National Health Service for the next few years. That will help the NHS to ensure that we have proper services at local level.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Skin. Does the Minister agree that more training at graduate and postgraduate level should encourage more doctors into dermatology? Does he further agree that in rural areas such as north Wales there is a tremendous lack of dermatologists?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the latter point reinforces the question raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman about the potential of telemedicine. The use of nurse-led clinics may also be one way to deal with some problems in rural areas. On training, it is tempting to say that medical students' training should be considerably extended to cover many different conditions. In view of the number of consultations that the public bring to general practitioners' surgeries, medical schools should certainly be encouraged to consider the curriculum to decide whether more should be devoted to dermatology. However, the creation of more GPs with a special interest in dermatology is a significant way to deal with the issue.

Animal Health Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House again in Committee on Clause 4.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Lord Tordoff: Before calling Amendment No. 192, I should inform the Committee that, were it to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 193 or 194 because of pre-emption.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 192:
	Page 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what I am trying to leave out of the Bill—these brutally simple and rather chilling words:
	"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies."
	As we read in subsection (1),
	"This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease or such other disease as the Minister may by order specify."
	Those words are simple. They make no concession to anyone: man or beast. They are, as I said in my first remarks, which were pretty well drowned by the exodus of noble Lords, brutal in their simplicity. They are useful in this respect and this respect only: they contain and comprise the whole spirit of the Bill. The Government are clearly saying: "We were right last time; we are always right. But last time we did not have quite enough protection against people who invoked the law against us. This time, we shall make no such mistake. We shall have this absolutely sweeping, uncompromising provision:
	'The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies.'"
	I do not intend to make a long speech, but I hope that the Minister has fully received the message—from me, at any rate—that that is a brutal piece of legislation of which the Government ought to be heartily ashamed. I am sorry that they have stained the Order Paper with the Bill and seek to stain the pages of the statute book with such a horrible measure. I do not intend to prolong my remarks at this stage; nor, I imagine, will I be tempted to press my amendment to a Division on this occasion; but I beg the noble Baroness not to underrate the strength of feeling that lies behind this simple amendment, which I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I follow my noble friend, who has clearly expressed his view on the amendment. The amendments grouped with it reinforce our concern about those words in the Bill. Members of the Committee may remember that when we considered the Bill many months ago, I cast it as the "Animal Death Bill", and the two lines to which my noble friend strongly objects underline the Government's thinking. That is a tremendous shame, because during the summer, as we reflected yesterday, the European Parliament's working group has recommended that vaccination to live should be the first choice option. But as we recommence consideration of the Bill today, that option is not for us to consider; we must consider what is before us, by which I am as appalled as is my noble friend.
	While supporting my noble friend so strongly, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 194, 195, 201, 202, 204 and 205—I hope that I am correct about the grouping. Turning to Amendment No. 194, the Minister has the option of deciding whether or not the circumstances are right for an animal to be slaughtered. The object of the amendment is to give a terminal date to that power, so that the owner of the animal does not have perpetually hanging over him the possibility that the Minister may finally decide to slaughter.
	Amendment No. 195 addresses the fact that the clause is too widely drafted and tends to give legal justification to all kinds of actions. During the most recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, we all saw on the television and will remember with horror the chasing of cattle with motorbikes and rifles. Our modification of the clause might not make such action immediately illegal, but would sweep away the chance that a clever lawyer might be able to justify such action under the clause as drafted.
	No doubt the Minister will assure us that the department would always act reasonably and in an appropriate manner, but I suggest to the Committee that that did not happen during the 2001 outbreak, and it is the same department to which we are supposed to give even greater, open-ended powers. The amendment would add the requirement to act in a "reasonable" way to the powers under the clause.
	There are two issues relating to Amendment No. 201. First, there is the general objection to the Minister empowering himself to pay compensation for an act that he has ordered. Secondly, the Government can take powers to vaccinate animals upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. Then, the Government can decree that all animals—or all animals of a certain type—that have been vaccinated shall be slaughtered. There is no way in which that second action can be laid at the door of the farmer. Moreover, biosecurity is irrelevant, so how can the farmer be penalised?
	I understand that, under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state may deprive a person of his possessions in the public interest only if its actions are provided for by law and are proportionate. I query the validity of the entire section. The report of the European Parliament's working group puts forward a vaccination to live policy. If that proposal is adopted, where would it leave the new section? Our amendment is supported strongly by the National Farmers Union.
	Amendment No. 202 outlines the most fair form of compensation. Although it should not happen, the vaccination of an animal against foot and mouth disease may cause a fall in its market value. For example, a cow may be valued at £700 before it is vaccinated but, once vaccinated, be worth only £400. The Minister may decide later to slaughter the animal, forcing the owner to forgo the possibility that the animal's market value may have recovered.
	I turn to Amendment No. 204. We wait to see what legislation the Government propose to bring in to secure full implementation of the new EU directives and of the findings of the inquiries, particularly the Royal Society inquiry. We have had the reports, but we have not received a response from the Government. I understand from the Government that that will not appear before the end of this month and that our wait may go on into next month. By that time, the Bill will have left the House. In the absence of new government legislation, we do not want to see the Government exercise such powers without referring to Parliament.
	Amendment No. 205, which is our last amendment in the group, presupposes either that the Government have accepted the amendment to subsection (1) or that they have accepted that compensation should be at market value. Certainly, if the Minister decides to pay less than market value and empowers himself to do that, his action should be subject automatically to parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I speak to Amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 199 and also to Amendment No. 205, which we tabled jointly with the Official Opposition. With the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, we are discussing the slaughter of vaccinated animals. We agree with the noble Lord's amendment, and I will not comment further on it, as the noble Lord has made clear the case for it.
	Amendment No. 197 would strengthen subsection (3)(b) to read:
	"which is otherwise reasonably required in connection with the slaughter".
	That test must be put in place to allow the vets and inspectors who are making the decisions to stop and think precisely about what they are doing. They should think, "Is it reasonable to slaughter this animal in these circumstances?"
	Subsection (4) of new Section 16A says that the Government must pay,
	"compensation of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Minister".
	We want 100 per cent compensation, and, in that respect, the effect of Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 is similar to Amendments Nos. 201 and 202, tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 201 stipulates that compensation should be,
	"the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered".
	Amendment No. 202 says that compensation should be,
	"the market value of the animal before it was vaccinated".
	One way or another, the compensation must be 100 per cent, if the slaughter is ordered by government officers. Amendment No. 199 would enact that provision.
	We have added our names to Amendment No. 205, tabled by the Conservatives. It refers to enforcement, an issue that has been covered by speakers on the Conservative Front Bench.

Lord Williamson of Horton: We are dealing with the issue of the slaughter of vaccinated animals. I hope that, before the Bill completes its passage through the House, the Minister will update us on progress towards the conditions necessary to make possible emergency vaccination as an alternative to extensive culling, in line with the Royal Society report. I attach great importance to that report, which signposts the way to the handling of any future outbreak by proposing the culling of infected animals or dangerous contacts, along with the use of vaccination-to-live as an appropriate alternative to extensive culling.
	The Minister will recall that the report indicated that there were some issues to be solved—validation of marker vaccines, tests to distinguish between vaccinated and vaccinated-infected animals—and concluded that,
	"With significant effort by DEFRA, this should be possible by the end of 2003".
	We are now being asked to legislate, but we would like to be assured that we are making progress towards what is set out in the report or, if we are not, that we intend to make such progress. The issues go together. It is likely that there will be a change in policy in the next few years, and we must move forward along that line, if we are to support what is in the Bill.

Lord Carter: Throughout the passage of the Bill—earlier this year and yesterday—I have been bewildered by the attitude of the Opposition and of some other noble Lords. For example, there were some unusually intemperate remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who spoke about what the Government were saying. It is not the Government who are saying it; it is the Anderson and Follett reports. The Anderson report says:
	"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic".
	That supports the central proposition that the extra powers that the Government are now taking in the Bill are required. They were required even before the reports. The Government introduced the Bill knowing that we needed extra powers. The central proposition advanced in the Bill—that the powers are required—was borne out by Anderson and Follett.
	I have one simple question. As a result of a decision of the House, with which I disagreed, we had to wait for the reports. Are noble Lords now saying that we should ignore them? They have already supported the central proposition that the Bill is required. Silly remarks about the "Animal Death Bill" do not help.

Baroness Byford: I object to the noble Lord's inference: the Bill is about the killing of animals.

Lord Carter: It is about slaughter; the noble Baroness is correct. That is blindingly obvious. The Bill was drafted because the Government realised during the 2001 epidemic that extra powers were needed. It was held up because this House said that we should wait to see the two reports before proceeding. We waited. The reports supported the Bill's central proposition that the extra powers were required. The Government have reacted to the recommendations in the reports and are tabling some detailed amendments on Report to deal with them.
	Should we now ignore those reports and, as was suggested yesterday, drop the Bill, even though the extra powers are required? If—God forbid—there were a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease we would need emergency legislation within 24 hours to give the Government the powers in the Bill.
	I turn to vaccination. I said yesterday that unless I am misreading the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is wrong about vaccination. She said that the Bill is about slaughter, which it is. It is also about vaccination. Clause 4, which is headed, "Slaughter of vaccinated animals", states:
	"(1) This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease or such other disease as the Minister may by order specify".
	That means vaccination can be used either as a pre-emptive strike to protect the animals or as a prophylactic for a whole herd or whatever.
	The crucial subsection is (2), which states:
	"(2) The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".
	If it said "shall cause", that would be vaccination to kill, but the Minister "may cause to be slaughtered"; that is, he has a choice. That therefore provides the option of vaccination to live. However well intentioned, the noble Baroness does not understand the Bill. It already contains a provision for vaccination to live.
	This House has to make up its mind. If it wants to kill the Bill and take responsibility for doing so, it should do so, but it should not criticise the Government continually for producing a Bill specifying extra powers recommended by two independent inquiries. The Government will be amending the Bill to take further account of the recommendations in the reports. That is the proper and responsible way for the Government to behave. To do otherwise, as some Members are suggesting, would be extremely irresponsible.

The Earl of Onslow: I am not at all bewildered. I suspect that the likelihood of the Government accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to insert "reasonably", is non-existent. But they are happy to make sure that it is immaterial as to whether the animals are diseased or anything else. They can go around shooting what they like. They are offended when I say that, but that is what the Bill says.
	This is typical of the Government, who ride roughshod over our liberties. That is seen in the Bill. It has also been suggested that the Government made a Horlicks—if that is a parliamentary term—of the foot and mouth outbreak because they did not have the right powers. That was not the reason. They made a Horlicks because they did not ban movement for five days; because they did not call in the Army quickly enough; and because of their administration in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—at that time the Queen had not changed its name—which kept alive the animals awaiting slaughter. That was nothing to do with a lack of power. It was administrative incompetence, not reading the Northumberland report and general shambolic misbehaviour.
	For the Government to say, "We now need powers that we may use unreasonably if we wish"—

Lord Carter: It is not the Government who are saying so; it is the Anderson report:
	"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous, and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic".

Baroness Byford: It is the Government's Bill, not Anderson's Bill.

The Earl of Onslow: I do not see Dr Anderson on the Front Bench. I see Ministers of the Crown on the Front Bench, introducing a Bill full of tyrannical and unreasonable ways of behaving. It is the same Government who would like to try to remove rights to trial by jury and who are contemplating the abolition of the double jeopardy rule. They are also contemplating various other illiberal alterations to our criminal justice system. They say that the Government know best and they can do what they like without let or hindrance, immaterial and unreasonable though that may be.
	The Government should think again about the Bill. I think that everyone accepts the need for a new Bill. We accept that the Anderson report must be taken into account in legislation, but on this side we are not bewildered. We happen to believe—at least, I do—that liberties of the subject are extremely important and should not be overridden by an arrogant executive.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and even the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, perhaps I may say that I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is saying. I suspect that the problem is that the language of this part of the Bill dates back to a previous era before we were taking the prospect of vaccination to live into account. Clearly, in some cases there may be good reason for a Minister to call for the slaughter of an animal that has been vaccinated.
	I suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful if on Report Clause 4(2) could be expanded to read:
	"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies, if good reason can be shown why the animal should not go into the food chain".
	If we are trying to improve the Bill, we want to introduce the assumption that vaccination will normally be vaccination to live. There still has to be the possibility of vaccination for slaughter, but we want to change the emphasis and the tone of the Bill, as I said yesterday.
	I support Amendment No. 202. It is the only just form of compensation as matters stand. The present likelihood is that if an animal is vaccinated its value would be reduced. I hope that we will reach the point where its value is enhanced. That may come to be the case, but it is not at the moment. I strongly support Amendment No. 202 rather than Amendment No. 201, because it safeguards adequate levels of compensation at this stage. The problem is that circumstances are changing as we go through the Bill, which is taking a long time. I hope that the Minister will understand what I am trying to say about vaccinated animals being slaughtered. We need to explain why in exceptional circumstances it may still be necessary to slaughter a vaccinated animal.

Lord Carter: I forgot to make a point about compensation for vaccination. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a good point about 100 per cent compensation. She should remember that she supported a government who for BSE paid only 50 per cent of the animal's value because it was worthless as it had the disease. Eventually they had to change that to 100 per cent, because the 50 per cent policy almost certainly led to the spread of the disease. But I leave that matter on one side.
	When my noble friend responds, I hope she will make it clear that the value that will be placed on the animal will be the 100 per cent value of the unvaccinated animal.

Lord May of Oxford: I would like to speak briefly in support of the amendment and to make some more equivocal remarks than the rather polarised remarks that we have been hearing. I am broadly sympathetic to the Bill's aims, which respond to a need to make clearer the powers that one has if one wishes to enter farms. For understandable reasons the Bill has been overtaken by events; by subsequent excellent and insightful reports and probably by actions in the EU.
	We are debating only a part of a larger picture. I am in favour of the amendment because I should like the word "reasonable" to appear wherever possible, and more. I much appreciate the letters that have been put around by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the sensible things that have been promised in regard to addressing some of the unanswered questions, but I wish the powers over what is euphemistically called "preventive slaughter" to be similarly spelled out for "vaccination to live".
	In particular, I support the recommendations of the Royal Society report—with which I am considerably familiar, understandably—that contingency plans should be brought before Parliament for debate and approval. The Government should bring before Parliament a framework for the contingency plans which covers the principles that will be involved in handling outbreaks of such diseases in future and which looks across the broad spectrum, rather than the understandable but, by virtue of its history, imbalanced Bill that is before us. Hence my approval of "reasonable".

Lord Monro of Langholm: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is being unfair in his criticism of the Opposition in regard to this extremely disappointing Bill. He does not seem to realise that we are in favour of good legislation and that we are trying to make this Bill better. It is a bad Bill. We are trying to make it better and to translate the reports, which are so significant, into legislation. That does not mean to say that the Government have got it right each time they have translated the reports into legislation. Under his Amendment No. 192, my noble friend Lord Peyton criticises the draconian powers contained in Clause 4, and we have every right to ask whether it is necessary to have such strong wording in the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, should take his mind back to the time of the foot and mouth epidemic and remember how we on this side of the House, week in and week out, were calling on the Government to use the powers they had to get on and make decisions, and not to drag the matter out much longer than in fact turned out to be necessary. He should remember how local authorities and the Army wanted to act, and yet were prevented by the Government from getting on with stamping out the epidemic as quickly possible.
	So it is quite wrong for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to indicate that we are not entirely in support of measures required to stamp out foot and mouth should it ever—one hopes not—recur. It is sometimes right for the Opposition to criticise the language in the Bill—for example, the draconian wording that we are trying to remove under Amendment No. 192. It is notable that there is no appeal against the procedure contained in those two lines, unlike in other clauses of the Bill where at least officials have to go to a justice of the peace for approval to enter a farm.
	My noble friend Lady Byford is right to raise again the issue of compensation and market value. She has explained carefully to the Committee, both yesterday and today, that, once a beast is vaccinated, at the present time it suffers a serious drop in value. We are trying to make the Government understand that. Until the food chain has accepted that vaccination is quite safe and that there is no worry at all to the consumer, there is bound to be a significant drop.
	In any event, I wish we could get away from the word "compensation". The issue relative to a farmer is the loss of market value. As I have explained, I lost my sheep flock last year under the contiguous cull, and in one day I saw 45 years of bringing up a sheep flock of reasonable quality fly out of the window. One gets no compensation for the value of the herd or the flock that day, or for the next four or five years that the ewes would have been in production; one gets no compensation for loss of profit over the years. One gets only the market value on the day the stock is slaughtered. We should put into the Bill "market value" rather than "compensation", because that is where the true impact lies.
	I support my noble friend Lord Onslow in his criticism of the Government in regard to the Bill. We want to see a much better Bill and we have every right to indicate, through the many amendments that we have tabled, how we think the Bill can be improved. I am very disappointed with the progress we have made in improving a Bill which is most disappointing for the farming community and, directly, for the public at large.

Baroness Mallalieu: One accepts—or I do at any rate—that when Ministers come to this House and say that they require an additional power which they may have to use in the event of a future outbreak, we should listen to what they say and give them that power. But I should say to my noble friend Lord Carter that criticism of the way the Bill is currently drafted does not come solely from the Opposition; it comes from some of us on his own Benches who have paid close attention to the progress of the Bill.
	In urging that legislation should be robust, unambiguous and fit for the purpose, Dr Anderson did not specify legislation which should be blanket and unfettered by reason. All we are asking is that the Bill be drafted in such a way that any future Minister who comes to exercise these powers is bound to pause and ask himself what is the basis of the use of that power. As presently drafted, the Bill is blanket, unfettered and, potentially, in the hands of a Minister—and we do not know who it may be at some stage in the future—capable of being misused.
	The criticism is not unreasonable. It should not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carter, who is, as we all know, a very fair man. It is something that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should want to see incorporated into the Bill now.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I totally support everything the noble Baroness said. I would have said the same but I could not have said it as well.
	My noble friend Lord Peyton was totally right to bring this clause as it stands to the attention of the Committee because we cannot seek Royal Assent for the Bill in this form. That would be a monstrous imposition. The Committee will be indebted to my noble friend Lord Peyton for having raised this point.
	I agree with the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. This clause has to be qualified. I, at least, would wish it to be qualified with the words "subject to the provisions of this Act". That would qualify the powers of entry provisions with which I propose to deal later on.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask for clarification in relation to Clause 4, which deals with proposed new Section 16A and the slaughter of vaccinated animals. There is a large difference between those animals which go into the food chain for meat and those animals which are used for breeding purposes. In the definition contained in the clause, there is no clarification of the difference between breeding stock and animals going for meat. I believe that there should be. If the breeding stock is vaccinated, why should there be a drop in value? I do not understand it. If vaccination works, why should there be a risk of animals being slaughtered?
	We saw in the last outbreak the real problem of people querying the value of valuable breeding stock. They simply did not understand. The problem is that many people do not understand what goes into the breeding of the good, valuable stock that is part of our heritage. I should like to see a definition in the Bill to distinguish between animals used for breeding and animals used for meat.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps it would help if I set the amendments in context. The Government's foot and mouth disease control strategy is to eradicate FMD quickly. Nevertheless, one of the objectives of any disease control strategy is also to minimise the number of animals slaughtered consistent with eradication and control of the disease.
	Use of emergency vaccination in future outbreaks will be a key option as part of the disease control strategy. As the Secretary of State's Statement to another place on the FMD inquiries made clear, the Government would ideally use a vaccinate to live strategy if emergency vaccination were used. Future scientific advances may allow vaccination a larger role but it could still be used only in conjunction with slaughter, movement restrictions and biosecurity.
	The Government have not yet formally responded to the inquiry reports but the Secretary of State's Statement to another place on 22nd July included the following:
	"Another key issue that has drawn much comment is the contentious issue of vaccination, on which both inquiries made recommendations. We can immediately accept two specific recommendations: that, as in 2001, we should ensure that the option of vaccination forms part of any future strategy for the control of FMD; and that any emergency vaccination policy should in future be not 'vaccinate to kill' but, ideally, 'vaccinate to live'".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/02; col. 672].
	The Lessons to be Learned Inquiry and the Royal Society report recommend that future outbreaks of FMD should be dealt with primarily by "stamping out", but that emergency vaccination should be an important adjunct to this primary strategy. And the Royal Society report recommends that a vaccination policy should be on a "vaccinate to live" basis. However, we should not wish to rule out the use of a "vaccinate to slaughter" policy as there may be situations when that is appropriate.
	Any development or change to UK policy on FMD vaccination has to take place within the framework of European regulations and agreed international disease control and trading standards. As noble Lords taking part in debate on the Bill are fully aware, vaccination is a complex issue. Any steps to use it would require full consideration of all the implications for the disease, the handling and control of vaccinated animals and products, and wider implications for the EU's FMD-free without vaccination status. Use of foot and mouth vaccines is prohibited unless specifically authorised by a European Commission decision following confirmation of the disease. I hope that that helps to set some of this in context.
	In the general context, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of human rights and EU law. The powers in the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 4 compensation will be payable for animals slaughtered in accordance with the convention rights. A further issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, to which I shall come shortly.
	The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised a point about the report and about Dr Anderson not being on the Front Bench today. That is self-evident. It is for the Government to place before Parliament recommendations which flow from the Anderson report, and that is what we are seeking to do in the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness has been converted to my point of view. That is exactly what I was saying: it is a government Bill. That is all I was saying. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was saying that it was an Anderson Bill. The sinner in heaven repenteth—lovely!

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should be in danger of getting totally lost in these matters. We have had a large number of references to Pen-y-ghent and Pen-y-fan. Following the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, can occasionally lead those on the Government Front Bench into a blind alley.
	There is a further important general point. There were cases where delay in action was partly due to the absence of certain powers which are now set out in the Bill. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Monro—of whether the Government needed more powers to be able to act quickly. I can assure the noble Lord on that point and shall write to him on the detail.
	Turning to specific amendments, Amendment No. 192 would remove the power to slaughter vaccinated animals. This power is necessary for the conduct of a vaccination campaign, whether vaccinate to live or vaccinate to slaughter. Where vaccinated animals are subsequently shown by distinguishing tests to have been infected with the virus, they will need to be slaughtered. Such a policy is in keeping with the recommendations of the Royal Society report, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord May, will accept. I am delighted that he has joined us on this issue.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness made an important point. She said that an animal which has been vaccinated and which has been subsequently shown to have had the disease has to be killed. Am I right or wrong? Without meaning to be rude to the noble Baroness, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord May, will be able to answer the point better than either she or I can. Presumably the animal is cured of the disease and is now immune, if it has had it, and therefore cannot pass it on. Is that the case? I am a seeker after information.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I used the term "have" in relation to the disease, not "have had". If an animal is shown to have the disease, or, I believe, to be a carrier of the disease—I shall write to the noble Earl if I am wrong—

Lord May of Oxford: It may be helpful if I intervene. If the infection is acquired at around the same time as the vaccination, that can happen. If I may lapse into pedagogic mode, that is partly why we do not vaccinate small children against measles too soon: the vaccine will not take, as they are protected against the disease by maternal antibodies, which are fading. It is quite a complex matter and there is a window in which that can happen.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I see that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is grateful. However, I assure him that he is not as grateful as I am for the noble Lord's intervention.
	Therefore, for those reasons, it is essential that we are able to retain the option of slaughtering vaccinated animals, but any decision on the slaughter of vaccinates would be made in the light of consultation with interested parties. The exit strategy of the vaccination campaign would depend on why we were vaccinating—for example, to prevent the disease from spreading—and would also take into account a cost-benefit analysis of the different strategies.
	These provisions in the Bill fill a gap in the existing legislation and make no presumption about the time at which slaughter of vaccinates would, if at all, be necessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will not press his Amendment No. 192. Should he require further information after Committee stage, I shall be delighted to provide it.
	Amendment No. 194 would unnecessarily restrict the Minister's ability to slaughter vaccinates. The three-month cut-off point is arbitrary to a degree. It is difficult to be certain. The provisions make no presumption about the time at which slaughter of vaccinates would, if at all, be necessary.
	There may be situations in which vaccinates may need to be slaughtered over three months after vaccination. For example, we could find that animals are infected beyond that period and need to be slaughtered as part of a problem of the associated herds and flocks.
	Therefore, we would be in difficulty. However, we recognise the underlying point as regards accepting an absolute limit.
	Amendment No. 195 would require any action taken under the powers in this section relating to the slaughter of vaccinated animals to be reasonable. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and others, made that point. We strongly support the principle on which the amendment is based. All our actions should be reasonable, and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we would always act reasonably. Indeed, Ministers have a public obligation to do so in the exercise of their duties. However, noble Lords may unwittingly be suggesting an amendment that could limit that obligation. In addition to acting reasonably, Ministers also have a public law obligation to act proportionately. If for the purposes of this legislation we were to restrict the term to "reasonable" and not include "proportionate" it could limit Ministers' obligations. I assure noble Lords that there is a legal requirement to be both reasonable and proportionate.
	Amendment No. 196 would have little real effect. "Otherwise" adds clarity in this context, and it separates subsections 3(a) and 3(b), making both parts complementary and comprehensive. If "otherwise" is removed, there would be an overlap between Section 16A(3)(a) and Section 16A(3)(b), rather than the linkage of the two distinct activities.
	Action may be required to enable an animal to be slaughtered and it could include entering premises, rounding up animals, verifying their identity and completing paperwork. Action that is otherwise required in connection with slaughter could include the removal of animals or carcasses from premises, and their disposal. Those lists are not exhaustive. The wording of the Bill is consistent with provisions in the 1981 Act. For example, Section 16(2)(b) deals with permitted action for treatment after exposure to infection or,
	"action which is otherwise required in connection with that treatment".
	It would therefore be inappropriate to accept Amendment No. 196.
	Amendment No. 197 would specify on the face of the Bill that any action taken in connection with the slaughter of vaccinated animals under the new powers would have to be reasonable. The tasks concerned could include bringing machinery on to the premises, identification, valuation or disposal. I hope that I have reassured the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that Ministers are required and are under an obligation to act reasonably and proportionately at all times. I assure noble Lords that guidance to the field on action that can be taken in connection with the slaughter of vaccinates—such as identification, bringing machinery on to farms, valuation or disposal—will specify that such action must not stray beyond what is reasonable.
	Amendment No. 198 would remove the provision requiring Ministers to pay compensation for slaughtered vaccinates of such an amount as to be prescribed by order. We recognise that setting compensation at market value would significantly increase the likelihood of any future vaccination programme achieving full uptake. On that principle, and without prejudice to any future compensation policy in respect of healthy animals, the Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. Amendment No. 198 is therefore unnecessary. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied with my reply.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the power contained in the Bill is to slaughter to prevent the spread of disease regardless of the intended use of the animal. However, I feel that I have not given her as comprehensive an answer as she would have liked, so I will write to her as soon as possible.
	Amendment No. 199 would specify that compensation for animals slaughtered under the powers in the Bill would be 100 per cent. Although the amendment does not specify what the 100 per cent relates to, I presume that it refers to the market value of the animal. As I have just said, the Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. In those circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Amendment No. 199 is not necessary.
	Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 would specify that compensation for all compulsorily slaughtered animals would be 100 per cent of market value before slaughter or vaccination. I have already referred to that point and I hope therefore that those amendments will not be pressed.
	Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 would convert the order-making power to specify what level of compensation should be paid for compulsorily slaughtered vaccinates from a negative resolution procedure to an affirmative one. The Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not feel it necessary to pursue these amendments.
	I apologise for the length of time that I have taken to reply. I have sought to cover all the points made, and I would be grateful if any member whose point I have not covered would tell me now or later, and I will write to them as soon as possible.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wish to make two points. First, it is clear from the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord May, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which relate in part to my Amendment No. 197, that the use, wherever possible, of the word "reasonably" would improve the language of the Bill. If the Government wish also to include the word "proportionate" it would make the Bill a friendlier piece of legislation. The Minister should not merely inform us that the requirement of reasonableness is implicit; it needs to be spelt out.
	Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, may want to comment on compensation. An important issue is the time of valuation, that is to say, whether it takes place just before vaccination, or at the beginning of the outbreak. This is a very important issue. We obviously welcome the fact that compensation at market value would be given, but it is important that the time at which valuation takes place is specified.

The Earl of Onslow: I have a question on which the Minister might wish to pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord May. She said that slaughter after the three-month limit might be slightly artificial. For how long does the vaccination last? If a disease is contracted, does it persist? I presume that those factors would affect the decision on whether a limit should be applied to slaughter policy.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord May, indicated that he did not wish to speak again. Often, I have looked hopefully towards the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, but I received no response from him either. It would be wiser for me to write on the subject of how long vaccination lasts.
	I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about the timing and the process of determining the value—of which the Government are committed to paying 100 per cent—and I shall send copies of the letter to other noble Lords.
	I am always nervous about answering at the Dispatch Box on a question to do with legal advice on whether laws depend implicitly or explicitly on the use of particular words. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, makes. If the legal advice is that it would not present any problems, I undertake to look at whether we could come back to "reasonable" and "proportionate", but if there is going to be a battle between the noble Lord and the lawyers, I fear, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that I may fall slightly towards the lawyers.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Baroness has adopted a most accommodating bedside manner. She has been very unprovoking and has given us no reason to complain on that account. However, I fear that in the content of her speech she has said very little to ease my anxieties. Throughout her remarks she has given no sign of her awareness of the feelings that underlie the amendment and that have been provoked by the clause. The noble Baroness looks puzzled. If she wishes me to expand on that I shall gladly do so.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fear that I gave the noble Lord the wrong impression. I understand the strength of feeling and I shall read carefully everything that has been said. I appreciate that some very strong views have been expressed.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: That is some relief to me. I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her undertaking to read what has been said. I, too, shall read her speech with the utmost care to make sure that I have not missed some nugget that would cheer me up, but I fear that that is not the case. The noble Baroness started by saying that she was going to put the matter in context. To continue with my reference to her bedside manner, that was a good way of smoothing the sheets down so that the patient could be comfortable. However, it does not make me entirely at ease with what is left.
	I, too, should like to put the matter in context. The noble Baroness has to accept that, even before the epidemic, the reputation of MAFF was not perfect. It did not enjoy a reputation of reliability, integrity and all the rest of it with the farming community. That was the start. The handling of the epidemic was far from immaculate. Even the Government have from time to time admitted that mistakes were made—and they certainly were.
	Much has been made of the Anderson report, which called for a requirement that powers be clear and unambiguous. That does not mean that anything that is both clear and unambiguous is unobjectionable. There is no doubt that the clause is very clear and unambiguous, but that is not all that Anderson said. He did not say that anything that met the requirement of being clear and unambiguous would be all right by him—very far from it.
	I remind the noble Baroness that the Bill and my amendment were drafted before the Anderson report was visible and long before the Royal Society report. The point that I wish to labour is that the feeling generated in the past is still there and very much alive. The subsection that I should like to delete says:
	"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".
	There is no mention of "reasonable". Putting the word in would not necessarily make the provision unclear or unambiguous. The Government and any authority wielding such powers must make some concession to the unease that is felt about somebody getting it wrong. No government, let alone this one, are in a position to say that Ministers never make mistakes. Most Ministers' careers are dotted with mistakes. A Minister coming clean and saying, "Yes, I am sorry, I made a mistake" is rather rare, although that does not mean that it does not happen.
	I apologise for making one further point. I should like to be absolutely clear that the noble Baroness is not inhibited by any shortcomings of mine and fully realises the widespread depth of feeling about such provisions. I may have fallen short in my description of it. I hope that she will fully understand what she is really up against. Some gesture should be forthcoming from the Government at a later stage of the Bill.
	I do not want to prolong my remarks, but I must apologise to the noble Baroness for the fact that in my zeal on my first amendment I omitted to mention Amendment No. 196, which is also in my name. Subsection (3)(b) contains the words,
	"which is otherwise required in connection with the slaughter".
	What is the value and meaning of "otherwise"? Is it a weasel word, or is it merely for decoration? If the latter, it could conveniently be omitted. If, on the other hand, it is a weasel word, perhaps the noble Baroness can explain its inward meaning.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for not having made clear that I had spoken to Amendment No. 196, as it was grouped with the others, although the noble Lord did not speak to it. If, as I fear, he finds my answers slightly short of satisfactory, I shall of course write to him on the subject and try to sort it out.
	I accept the strength of feeling in the Committee on the issue of reasonableness. That is why I told the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that if I am able to have due regard to that and to respond to the feeling of the Committee I shall do so. I shall take that issue away. I hope that the Committee will accept that I am making that statement in good faith.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 193:
	Page 2, line 32, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I omitted in error to refer to Amendment No. 193 yesterday, but it deals with exactly the same subject. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 194:
	Page 2, line 32, after "slaughtered" insert "within three months of the date of vaccination"

Baroness Byford: I should like to come back a little on the Minister's response, for which I am grateful. I am slightly surprised that her colleagues—if I may so call them—in the Box cannot answer the question. We have included a three-month time limit in the provision because, as I explained earlier, we feel that the commitment should not be open-ended. In other words, without the amendment, the power could apply nine months or even one or two years after vaccination.
	Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke about the importance of breeding stock which is extremely valuable and takes years to build up. It would be undesirable if the threat of losing that stock were to hang over farmers for an unspecified period. Do the Government have plans to address that issue? If not, I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up the position and provide us with more guidance before we return to the issue on Report.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I give that undertaking. I failed to deal with the point earlier not because the officials in the Box failed to supply an answer but because it arose while I was on my feet and I did not have time to consult. Had I known that the noble Baroness would return to the point, I would have consulted the Box while the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was speaking. I shall of course take up the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 195 to 198 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 199:
	Page 2, line 38, leave out from "under" to end of line 40 and insert "the powers given to the Minister in this Act, the Minister will pay 100 per cent compensation"

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her indication on the issue of compensation payment. However, it would help us enormously if we had more detail before Report. Although we dealt with the point yesterday, it is still very much up in the air. The Bill does not cover it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I give an undertaking to write to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 200:
	Page 2, line 38, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 203:
	Page 2, line 40, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 206:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
	In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 36—
	"36A NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
	The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament.""

Baroness Byford: Amendment No. 206 is our proposal for a national contingency plan. As Members of the Committee who were in the Chamber yesterday know, the Government have indicated that they will propose their own national contingency plan. I hope that that position has not changed overnight.
	We are asking the Government to,
	"prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with the interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament."
	We are asking that such a plan be prepared, regularly updated and maintained in consultation with other bodies. Yesterday, the Minister said that the Government are giving such a commitment. We are pleased that they have accepted the weight of our arguments.
	Anderson devoted a whole chapter to contingency planning and made six associated recommendations. One of his major criticisms of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, made on page 34, was that although the then animal health contingency plan had been checked in 2000, implementation of the Drummond report recommendations was proceeding slowly. I hope that the Minister will be able today to update us on subsequent developments. The obvious inference is that the department must be answerable frequently and openly to a higher authority.
	According to the National Audit Office report, on page 29, the national contingency plan had been approved in July 1993. The work in 2000 consisted mainly of updating contact names, telephone numbers and minor facts. Work had in fact been done on local plans, but four of the 19 plans had not been updated in years. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be disappointed and concerned by that fact.
	The National Audit Office report says that the contingency plans coped in areas where the outbreaks were small but not in the worst-hit areas where many more farms were affected. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support Amendment No. 206 and its proposal for a national contingency plan. In the interest of brevity, I should point out that many of these points were debated yesterday in relation to our Amendment No. 99 and Amendment No. 103A. In those debates Ministers told us that a national contingency plan was an integral part of their plans and would be outlined in due course. I support the amendment and trust that the Government will keep their word in relation to yesterday's assurances.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the amendment. However, I ask the Minister whether it is not a European Union requirement for the British Government to have a contingency plan for foot and mouth disease that must be periodically revised and approved by the European Union? Was that not done with the July 2000 version? I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whether the contingency plan applies to all animal diseases or only to foot and mouth disease, as does the current contingency plan?

Lord Whitty: I should first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. As I indicated yesterday, the Government intend to table an amendment that is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 206. Although I should like to finalise this with my legal advisers, the intent of our amendment will be in line with the requirements of Amendment No. 206.
	An interim foot and mouth contingency plan is currently available and will shortly be not so much finalised as continually updated. In answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the foot and mouth contingency plan will serve as a template for the control of other diseases. In addition, however, specific contingency elements will be developed to deal with other diseases. That point would presumably be covered by Amendment No. 206, and it will certainly be covered by the amendment that we shall table.
	In principle, therefore, I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. With the leave of the House, I shall table an appropriate amendment on Report.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that clarification. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was right to raise a point which I have specifically dealt with in my amendment. Under "National contingency plan", the amendment states that,
	"In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 36."
	Designated as Section 36A, it states that,
	"The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament."
	I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and look forward to his tabling of the government amendment. I am also extremely grateful. Ministers have appreciated the weight of our argument and are moving forward on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 207:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"E"PIRY
	Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect on 31st December 2004."

Lord Greaves: The purpose of Amendment No. 207 is to probe the intentions of the Government as to the status of the legislation that is proposed in the medium term. When the Bill was first put forward there was a very clear impression given that it was interim legislation and that it would at some stage be replaced, supplanted or added to by further legislation following the reports of the Anderson committee, the Follett report and so on. Indeed, we are now promised a report from the committee of the European Parliament which many of us are looking forward to reading.
	A long time ago—it seems a long time ago—back in January when we had the Second Reading of the Bill, there was considerable discussion and debate as to whether the Bill should proceed. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer is recovering from a serious operation. I am sure that the whole Committee joins me in wishing her a good recovery so that she can once again take her place in the Chamber. At Second Reading she moved an amendment which would have had the effect of delaying consideration of the Bill. Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Moran, invoked a procedure which I believe had not been used within living memory—not even that of Members of this Chamber—and, as a result, the Committee stage was postponed for several months.
	At Second Reading the Minister made some comments which I wish to quote as they are pertinent to the question we are discussing. He said,
	"We look forward to learning the longer-term lessons that those investigations will yield ... in relation to those lessons about which we are already aware, we should take steps to rectify the situation now. That is what the Bill is about".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 838.]
	He added, at col. 842, that,
	"the Bill reflects the lessons already learnt from foot and mouth disease; the need for us in the coming months to have a full armoury of weapons, should the disease recur".
	We have heard that constant refrain from the noble Lord and the Government. I believe that that view is broadly shared in the Chamber. The noble Lord referred, also at col. 842, to,
	"the time when we can take into account the full outcome of the inquiries which we have set up to look into the disease and the lessons learnt on a longer-term, more strategic basis. At that point—
	this is the part I emphasise—
	"I have no doubt that the Government will need to come forward with both legislative and operational proposals in more comprehensive detail".
	Yesterday the Minister said in his statement that,
	"I should make clear that our comprehensive response to the Lessons to be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries were intended to be published in late October or early November and I cannot pre-empt the publication of that response ... However, we have given priority consideration to those aspects of the inquiries that could impact on the Bill".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 22.]
	The Minister also referred to various government amendments that would be brought forward.
	There is an interesting question concerning the status of the legislation now as regards the Government's intentions. Is this still regarded—as I believe many regarded it six months ago—as interim legislation which will be replaced, or is it permanent, long-term legislation? Will any further legislation that results from the Government's consideration of the Anderson, Follett and, no doubt, other inquiries that will emerge later this year—very soon later this year, one hopes—be additional legislation building on the Bill or will it be replacement legislation in some kind of omnibus Bill that takes over from this Bill? In other words, is this Bill a short or medium-term answer to the immediate problems to allow the Government to deal with a new outbreak or outbreaks of other diseases should they occur—heaven forbid—in the interim, or is it intended that this legislation will still be on the statute book in 10 or 20 years' time? The purpose of tabling the amendment I am discussing is to probe the Government's intentions. It is important that we know the position. I am not sure that we have yet received a clear statement from the Minister on the matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I add my weight to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised. I believe that we all agree that we are in some difficulty as regards debating this Bill at this time. I too should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government's thinking on that aspect of the Bill and on the sunset clause that is proposed. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Earl Peel: I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Presumably, as far as the Government are concerned, the deliberations of the Anderson and Follett reports are of a voluntary nature. They can interpret those reports as they wish and they can introduce legislation accordingly. However, I refer also to the deliberations of the European Parliament. As I understand the position, those recommendations will be compulsory and the Government will have to introduce legislation accordingly. Whichever way one looks at the matter one can assume only that further legislation will be needed to finish the business with regard to foot and mouth.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked a number of questions, not all of which I can answer. However, I shall try to put the matter in perspective. When the Bill first appeared—some time ago now—it was still, as I said yesterday, under the shadow of the disease. It was considered to be needed urgently in order to cover the situation should an outbreak recur. In the event, Members of this Chamber delayed the Bill until after the reports we are discussing had been received.
	The comments I made at an earlier stage of the Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, were made without knowledge of the detailed recommendations of the reports. However, the reports endorse the central provisions of the Bill. The reports also cover some other aspects, either directly or implicitly, which are not in the Bill. There are a number of problems with animal health legislation, some of them alluded to yesterday, which the Government will have to take into account in developing our animal health strategy over the next few months. Until that strategy has been developed we shall not be clearer as to what type of additional legislation will be required and whether that legislation will be additional to the Bill—or the Act, as I hope it will become—or whether it will be consolidating legislation which will incorporate the Bill and other legislation. That decision has yet to be taken.
	The clause we are discussing is clearly a sunset clause, and a fairly short-shrift sunset clause at that. It presumes that we shall have legislation on the statute book in the parliamentary Session after next. Given the history of animal health legislation and the difficulties that have arisen in that regard, it would be unwise of any government to commit themselves to such a sunset clause. As the main provisions of the Bill are endorsed by Anderson and the Royal Society, I do not wish to call it interim legislation. It may be incomplete legislation but I suspect that the long-term legislation will either keep the Bill in place or broadly incorporate its powers. Therefore, I do not believe that it is appropriate to include a sunset clause. I certainly do not believe that it is appropriate to include a short-term sunset clause, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
	Clearly, the position will have to be reviewed in the light of the development of the animal health strategy taking into account all the points made in the reports, our experience and, indeed, as the noble Earl indicated, the European developments which will emerge in a few months' time. As of now, I believe that the main provisions of the Bill will be fairly longstanding. However, as regards the exact nature of the subsequent legislation, I cannot give any clearer an answer than I have just attempted to provide. Therefore, I resist any attempt to insert a sunset clause into the Bill.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for giving an interesting clarification of his and the Government's thoughts, which has been useful. That was main purpose of the amendment.
	In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I believe that the conclusions of the European Parliament's committee of inquiry, if that is what it is, will not be binding on anybody. It is simply a committee of inquiry, as I understand it, which is producing a report. If the result is future directives or legislation from the European Parliament or otherwise in Europe, that would be binding. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, knows more about these things than I do and he agrees with me. He is nodding. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
	It was an interesting clarification, but I am not sure that it was what many of us wished to hear. Nevertheless, on the basis of that clarification I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Treatment: power of entry]:
	[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 209:
	Page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This amendment examines the situation as we find it in the Animal Health Act 1981. It amends subsection (3) which refers to treatment and the power of entry and enforcement in the Bill. The subsection omits the words from "taking with him" to the end.
	I wish to probe the Minister's mind, if I am in the correct part of the Bill. I know that I shall be corrected if that is not the case. Section 16(2)(b) of the Animal Health Act 1981 has been referred to. It states,
	"which is otherwise required in connection with that treatment, and for the purpose of exercising those powers any officer of the Minister may, subject to the production of his authority on demand, enter any land or premises taking with him such persons, if any, which he considers requisite".
	My interpretation is that, subject to the production of his authority on demand, he may enter any land or premises, full stop. That is what will remain as a result of the words in the 2002 Bill. That indicates that no persons will be taken with him as he considers requisite. I wonder about the background to that and why these changes are asked for. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: This is a formulation which we have used elsewhere in the Bill and therefore I defend its consistency. It alters the provisions of the 1981 Act. The effect of the amendment would be to revert to that Act which states that the officer may take with him any such other persons, if any, which he considers requisite. Apart from the arcane language, I believe that the matter is better expressed by what we have in this Bill, that the inspector may take with him or her such other persons as he thinks necessary to give him assistance as he thinks necessary. In other words, what is requisite or not is related to giving the inspector assistance and not necessarily to anybody for any other purpose which the inspector may feel inclined to bring along with him.
	In effect it restricts what was previously the situation, but it does so in a very specific way. The noble Lord may say that it is a relatively minor change and why bother, but it is consistent with what we have said elsewhere in the Bill and I would rather leave it that way.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for his response. As amended, the provision is slightly abrupt. I certainly welcome the clarification of what is meant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 210:
	Page 3, line 21, leave out "justice of the peace" and insert "petty sessional court with at least three justices of the peace sitting"

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: This amendment is very simple, as Members of the Committee will see. It seeks to amend page 3, line 21 of the Bill. I shall read the clause which I seek to amend. Subsection (3) states:
	"If a justice of the peace is satisfied on sworn information in writing"—
	that is one justice of the peace. The evidence is given on oath, but not verbally—
	"that the first condition is satisfied and that the second or third condition is satisfied he may issue a warrant authorising an inspector to enter any land or premises".
	I wonder whether the matter should go before a petty sessional court with at least three justices of the peace sitting. That may be too elaborate. I ask the Government to consider not cutting down legal proceedings to the bare minimum contemplated here. I am not entirely without hope that the Minister will respond positively. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I cannot oblige the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The whole point of the new provision in the Bill is that we get swift decisions. The stipulation that there should be three justices of the peace rather than one will inevitably lead to delay in convening such a court in certain circumstances. It would go well beyond the normal case where one justice of the peace is sufficient in an application for a warrant in other circumstances. It would be unprecedented to apply that to these circumstances.
	Having said that and having recognised the noble Lord's anxieties, we have tabled amendments which clarify the range of conditions on which a warrant may be granted. They should ensure that the powers are subject to a clear, transparent and rigorous test of reasonableness and that the overall balance, such as the public interest, is taken into account with the private interests and those of the farmer or stockholder. We are clarifying the issues which the justice of the peace will have to take into account. Adding two further JPs to a situation where one is trying to overcome the disease would slow down the process. It would therefore be contrary to what is intended by these changes in the procedure.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believed that I was very reasonable in that I admitted that I was asking for a full choir. I realise that was being a little optimistic. I sensibly and modestly said that I would not insist on that. I hoped very much that the noble Lord would be moved by my accommodating attitude and do likewise. I am a little disappointed. Other people are likely to be affected by this procedure and they are not going to be represented. They will have no chance to object. I wonder whether it would not be wise for the noble Lord, for the sake of appearances, to look at this matter again. As I said, I am not asking for the full choir, but for somebody to be there to see that things are done as they should be. One justice of the peace is minimal.

Lord Whitty: Presumably, the degree of the noble Lord's "reasonableness", which I am always willing to acknowledge, is to move from requesting three justices of the peace to requiring just two JPs. Admittedly, that would make it slightly more likely that they could convene such proceedings, but it would still slow down the process. In all other warrant proceedings, one justice of the peace is sufficient. Therefore, because speed is of the essence in this particular case—and provided that the JP is required to observe "reasonableness" in the way that our amendment will provide for—I believe that one JP is sufficient in these circumstances. I regret that I cannot be as reasonable as the noble Lord suggests; indeed, even compromising at one-and-a-half would be beyond me.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In these very sad circumstances I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment. I cannot make the usual observation that I shall, of course, read most carefully everything that the Minister said. The noble Lord said so little that it would not be worth reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 211:
	Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) The warrant shall be issued together with a certified copy of the sworn information."

Lord Campbell of Alloway: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 238, both of which relate to Clause 6. The latter are reflected in identical amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 244 and 267, which relate to Clause 7. I understand that there is an instruction in the brief of the Deputy Chairman of Committees to point out an error in Amendments Nos. 238 and 267. Both amendments refer to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whereas reference should be made to Article 8 of the convention. I have been informed that there was to be an instruction in the brief of the Deputy Chairman of Committees to draw attention to that error. However, perhaps I may do so myself at this point.
	Each set of amendments is complementary and relates to the exercise of the power to enter land or premises to slaughter. It engages the right to respect the family life under Article 8(1) of the convention. We are in a curious situation at present. The scheme of this Bill was devised in a national emergency for slaughter, but it amends the 1981 Act which was introduced when there was no national emergency. Slaughter is extended from that Act by amendment to deal with the national emergency to protect the spread of disease.
	We have now moved to the stage when there is no national emergency and, apparently, vaccination is to be preferred to slaughter. The importance of that is as follows. What is reasonable and proportionate in a time of national emergency may not be reasonable and proportionate at some other time. It depends upon the circumstances. There must be a procedure which affords that flexibility. Without reverting to the first amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton, the lack of flexibility in that clause was the root of the trouble.
	In that context, the Minister said yesterday that the same powers of entry are required for both vaccination and slaughter. I understand that. I also understand that in a time of national emergency such powers must be of a certain quality, but that, at a time which is not a national emergency, they have to be of another quality; in other words, there has to be a flexibility reflected in the procedure which is acceptable under Article 8(2) of the convention on human rights.
	It is no use the Minister pointing out to the Committee that he has already certified the Bill as being "compatible with the Convention rights". I shall shortly refer noble Lords to two passages in the Tenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which takes another view. The position here is that one has to show under Article 8(2) that the Bill's provisions, or the implementing machinery under a code of practice, are necessary in the interests of the economic well-being of the country and are proportionate to that end.
	So, what happens? A justice of the peace issues a warrant on the sworn information that the three conditions are satisfied. He authorises an inspector to enter using reasonable force, and to require any person on the land or premises (under pain of fine and imprisonment for refusal) to give such assistance as he thinks necessary under the slaughter warrant.
	Amendments Nos. 211 and 244 say that when the warrant is served it must be accompanied by the information on which it was sought. If that is not complied with, there will be massive scope for the abuse of power, which it would be totally unacceptable to leave in a statute. Indeed, it simply could not exist. Apart from the wretched convention on human rights, it is contrary to our whole concept of justice that anything like that should be tolerated. It means that when the man receives the information—that is, the sworn information on which the warrant is issued by the justice of the peace—he can say, "But it's not true: I am going straight off to the High Court to ask for an emergency hearing". I can assure the Committee that you always get it; indeed, you can get it at the drop of a hat. An emergency hearing would be convened and it would be held up by order of the High Court, or given a stay under judicial review—a mandatory order against the executive. It is done very often.
	However, if you do not have the knowledge and if you do not have in your hand the sworn information, what on earth can you do? That is the force of the argument behind Amendments Nos. 211 and 244. The latter are related to Amendment No. 238, which is double-barrelled. It refers to the penal section: if you refuse to comply with the request of the inspector, you may receive six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. Those are the provisions in Clause 6(12). As corrected, Amendment No. 238 states:
	"The provisions of subsection (12) shall not create an offence if in the circumstances failure to give such required assistance was a reasonable and proportionate response having regard to the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
	The following new paragraph states:
	"The Secretary of State may issue a code of practice as to the nature and extent of the requirement for assistance under subsections (8) and (9) which shall be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament".
	That resolution could accommodate various circumstances, such as a national emergency and the change to when there is not a national emergency. It could operate through the equivalent of an Order in Council. It would import the very flexibility that is missing in the Bill but which has to be included if it is to work in a just and reasonable fashion.
	That is what these amendments are all about. I do not want to take up much more time but there are two passages from the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which are straight in point on both amendments. I have to declare an interest—or lack of interest—as a member of that committee.
	The first reference is from paragraph 27. It states:
	"However, we consider that it would be desirable for a copy of the information sworn by an inspector in support of the application for a warrant to be served on the occupier, together with a copy of the warrant, when the warrant is executed, in order to reduce the risk of arbitrariness and to make judicial review of the warrant an effective remedy for any violation of Convention rights. With the same ends in view, we consider that the term of the Protocol, proposed in the Government's consultation paper on the implementation of powers under the Bill . . . should be capable of being received as evidence in relation to any issue to which they may be relevant in any proceedings, like the Codes of Practice which deal with many other areas of public administration, including entry to premises in the course of criminal investigations. Such proceedings would include applications for warrants and judicial review of warrants . . . If these safeguards are provided, we conclude that the provisions of the Bill would be unlikely to give rise to an unavoidable incompatibility with rights under . . . Article 8".
	The other passage, which, fortunately, is shorter, is from paragraph 21. It states:
	"we do not consider that there is a serious risk of these provisions of the Bill being incompatible with Convention rights in theory or in practice. However, we believe that legislation which confers apparently wide powers or imposes apparently wide liabilities should make clear the limitations which are imposed by Convention rights. This is desirable in the interests of legal certainty and the notion of the rule of law, ideas which are central to effective guarantees of human rights. Express clarification on this point could be provided by an amendment to the Bill without ... affecting the policy which the Bill seeks to advance or the balance of interests which it embodies. Accordingly, we draw the matter to the attention of each House".
	Something has got to be done about this. It is no use the Government saying, "We have certified that this is fully compatible with the ECHR". The matter goes well beyond that; it goes to the root of justice. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I was going to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 212, which appears in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford, but, having listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell—I have every sympathy with the very persuasive argument that he put forward—I have to point out that if we supported Amendment No. 212, by which an occupier would be entitled to present sworn information in person or in writing to a justice of the peace, he or she would not be able to do so unless he or she had had access to that information beforehand. That is covered by the amendment of my noble friend. The two amendments, as I see them, are symbiotic.
	I return to the letter of 25th September, which the Minister kindly sent to those of us who are interested in the Bill. He gave, or implied, certain assurances, some of which have clearly not materialised in the government amendments. For example—I have already referred to these two instances—there is no obligation, under the government amendments, on inspectors to serve copies of written evidence that is put before the magistrates to the occupiers. Secondly, occupiers have no right to put their case to the magistrate; that matter is covered by my noble friend's amendment.
	Without wishing to put too fine a point on it, there is no doubting the fact that a great deal of friction has built up during the course of the foot and mouth crisis between the inspectors and the Government and the rural community and farmers. Suspicion prevails; some of it is justified and some of it is clearly not justified. However, that is the case.
	I realise—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was absolutely right to make this point—that the Bill's primary aim is to give the Government the necessary powers to carry out their responsibilities when dealing with a crisis such as the foot and mouth outbreak. Of course its contents should be based on lessons learnt and the recommendations that flow from the expert inquiries. However—I stress this point—it should also be seen as a chance to build bridges and to restore confidence between the farming community and the new department. MAFF has gone and we now have DEFRA. I see the Bill as a real opportunity to give rural communities confidence in DEFRA.
	It is totally unreasonable to deny an occupier the opportunity of having access to the evidence that has been submitted to the magistrate. Such evidence will, in many cases, completely change the lifestyle of an individual; we have seen so many cases in which farmers have become totally distraught as a result of foot and mouth. A consequence that flows from that is that natural justice demands that the same occupier should have the chance to respond—that is suggested in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford—and therefore the opportunity to put his or her case to that magistrate.
	I really do not believe that that is an unreasonable request. This is a perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that they wish to work closely with rural communities. Both amendments are essential and would send the right message. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider them very seriously.

Lord Greaves: The amendment and the following two groups of amendments are very important parts of the Committee's discussion. The amendments are about what happens when a decision is made, or when a potential decision is made, by magistrates to issue a warrant to a person acting on behalf of DEFRA to go on to a farm or land and slaughter or do other things to the livestock there. Slaughter is the most important issue—people are most concerned about it.
	Although an improvement on what exists in the Bill and despite going some of the way to meet what is required, I do not believe that any of these amendments, including the government amendments which we shall discuss later, are adequate. I hope that we can return to the matter on Report.
	As I understand it, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggests that people should be given the information or sworn statement on which the magistrate makes the decision at the point when the warrant is exercised and people enter the land. That, it seems to me, is too late. The crucial issue is that addressed by the next group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; that is, people should be entitled to make representations to the magistrate before the decision is made. I believe that that can occur without causing a huge delay in the whole process—a matter which clearly concerns the Minister.
	However, in order for that to happen, surely the details of any other information provided to the magistrate should be made available to the owner of the livestock before, or when, he makes his own submissions. I believe that under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the information would be provided too late so far as concerns that process. I still believe that the information should—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I did it on purpose. I envisaged the emergency situation. Things have to move quickly in a national emergency. I may have been wrong but that is how I saw it. I believed that the minimum safeguard was that, if the information was made available then, one could say, "No, it's wrong. I'm going to seek emergence". But I quite agree—if one wants to play it the other way round, that is a matter for the Committee. But if one does that, one detracts from the emergency aspect.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going on to say that, if it were impossible for the information to be provided at an earlier stage, then, as the noble Lord said, as the minimum requirement it should be absolutely necessary for it to be provided at the time the warrant was served. If people want to take further action, they must know on what basis a decision has been made. Without such a provision, I do not believe that the rules of natural justice are being applied.

Baroness Mallalieu: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. Of all the areas of the Bill which trouble me, this one troubles me most. I am perhaps trespassing into subsequent groups of amendments with which we are about to deal. However, whatever the method and at whatever stage it is done, it seems to me that some way must be found to provide that the farmer or owner of the animals who is on the receiving end of such an order at some stage has all the evidence that is placed before those who make the decision and that at some stage he is given an opportunity to be heard. Perhaps the stage at which that happens is not so important, although ideally it should happen at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that, in considering this and later groups of amendments, there will come a point at which the Government can say that there are ways in which that can be achieved.

The Countess of Mar: I believe that on the whole in this country we are governed by consent. That consent involves acceptance of the law. One of the big problems experienced during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease was that people were "jackbooting" their way on to people's premises and killing the animals without the consent of the owners.
	Contrary to the belief of some noble Lords whom I have heard speaking in this House, most farmers do not regard their animals as goods to be exchanged for money. They build up affection for them. When one has had a herd of Friesian cattle, for example, for 30, 40 or 50 years, one knows every single animal in the herd, one knows all their personalities and one talks to them. To be told overnight that one's animals will all be killed is an extremely shocking experience. We know that that shock still runs through the farming communities where foot and mouth disease spread.
	The Bill as currently drafted and, indeed, the new amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, do not necessarily invoke consent in the farming community. I ask the noble Lord to think very carefully about the amendments both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, before he rejects them outright.

Lord Whitty: I disagree with the fundamental proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there is a distinction between emergency and other situations. In my view, if foot and mouth disease breaks out in this country, we have an emergency situation. It does not matter whether it involves 60 premises or one. We need to act quickly and we need to stamp it out quickly by whatever method—slaughter or vaccination—is considered appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that that distinction applies.
	The purpose of the procedure that we have adopted here is to speed up the process whereby, where there is conflict between the stockholder or farmer and the authorities, the authorities can apply to a justice of the peace. Clearly this is a conflict situation and, clearly, in such a situation there is not consent. That is why we must deal with it. In the vast majority of cases, reluctantly and with great trauma in many cases, farmers recognised that we needed to act quickly and therefore entry was granted. However, in a few cases, some of which threatened to hold up effective disease control, entry was not granted. That is a conflict situation.
	However, speed is still of the essence. The provisions that I am tabling, first, require the authorities to inform the occupier what is required of him and the reasons for it and, secondly, if he refuses entry, then the justice of the peace must be convinced of the inspector's or the authority's claim.
	I do not believe that representations are provided for in any other warrant procedure. Many warrant procedures are subject to far less time pressure than exists when one is trying to stamp out a grotesque disease. Therefore, I believe that building in sworn statements, representation—I know that that comes under a separate group of amendments—or other potential delays is not a sensible way in which to approach the matter.
	In our own amendments we have indicated what needs to be conveyed to the occupier and what the justice must take into account when making a decision as to whether or not to grant a warrant. However, I do not consider it necessary to build in a process which would slow down that procedure. As I said, no other warrant procedure requires copies of the information to be provided and, in essence, there is no difference in principle. The justice of the peace must consider all the relevant factors.
	It is also the case that the powers provided here have precedence in other enforcement regimes, in particular, in the Food Safety Act 1990, which may be regarded as equivalent to this situation but possibly less fraught in terms of how rapidly one would need to act and the consequences of not acting. Therefore, I believe that precedence, logic and the need for speed rule out the type of provisions which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicate he would like to see.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that, provided those safeguards were built in, it did not believe there was a serious risk that the provisions of the Bill would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, either in theory or in practice. The committee suggested one particular way of ameliorating the situation; we have suggested others in terms of what the justice must take into account. The central conclusion of the committee was that, given all the circumstance, those powers are compatible.
	In terms of Amendment No. 267 and requiring assistance, we have tabled an amendment to restrict a person from whom assistance is required in those circumstances to those who are keeper of the stock or their employees. The requirement would have to be reasonable.
	We have built in many safeguards, but to have another legal turn of the loop, as is required by these amendments, would not be appropriate. It is not required for the procedure to comply with the European convention and could be detrimental to the process of controlling the disease.

Lord Greaves: Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, replies perhaps I may ask the Minister about the warrants. Thank goodness I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that generally warrants are for purposes such as search or investigation or for seizing property or for arrest or for such purposes that are not as terminal or as permanent as going on to land and slaughtering livestock. The nature of the action to be taken leads some noble Lords to question whether a normal warrant procedure needs further safeguards built around it in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister can take advice and tell me of circumstances where warrants are issued that are analogous to entering a farmer's land and slaughtering all the sheep or cattle.

The Countess of Mar: I notice that Section 16 of the Act relates only to vaccination. Therefore I do not feel as strongly about these amendments because the animals will not be killed instantly. In relation to later amendments, where there are slaughter powers, I shall be more concerned. It seems that there can be slightly different requirements for vaccination-only purposes as opposed to slaughter requirements.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I take that point. It was within my concept of the flexibility of the code of practice, the code of procedure or form of amendment. I quite agree that there has to be flexibility as to how the matter is operated. I am grateful for the contribution on warrants which is absolutely right. There is a fundamental distinction between a warrant for the slaughter of a herd of animals and an ordinary warrant. I must not take the time of the Committee because it is totally apparent from the speech of the Minister that he will not budge an inch. He is going to stand by his attitude, which has been typical in relation to this Bill, and tough it out. I shall not take the time of the Committee today, but I shall test the opinion of the House on another occasion if I am given leave, for which I ask, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 212:
	Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) Any person given notice under subsection (5)(b) shall be entitled to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."

Baroness Byford: Amendment No. 212 could have been linked with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, but I felt strongly that he had an additional point to make and if he wished to divide the Committee I did not want my amendment to fall with his. To a certain extent we debated this matter on the previous group of amendments. This amendment comes with backing from the farming community who strongly feel that there should be a chance to have,
	"present sworn information in person or in writing",
	put before the justice of the peace. Some noble Lords may remember that in the foot and mouth outbreak some farmers were threatened and hassled to allow their animals to be killed and in a couple of instances I believe that some animals were culled by mistake because the department made a map reading error.
	These amendments are not tabled lightly, nor without sincerity. I shall take no more time at this stage as I want to hear whether the Minister has anything additional to say. I note the good contributions made by noble Lords. My feeling is that these issues are so important that I do not wish to put them to a vote at this stage, but I want to hear what the Minister has to add. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: As I indicated, this amendment, along with the provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would slow down the process. I do not believe that a sufficiently strong case has been made in this situation, as distinct from all other warrant-granting situations, for providing for representations to be made. Reverting to the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that no other warrant proceedings are quite the same as this. I suspect that that is true in the sense that animals are not slaughtered, although I would need to make a thorough assessment of all previous law, much of which goes back many centuries. However, in the economic sense there are equally draconian measures that can be carried out in terms of warrants. Businesses can be closed down as a result of the grant of a warrant under the legislation to which I referred—the Food Safety Act 1990. One can take measures that would close down a business just as much as one would close down a livestock farmer by slaughtering his flock or herd. So I do not believe that the precedent is made.
	Reverting again to the previous debate, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu asked for representations to be allowable at some point. Representations are allowable; they are allowed not to a judicial body but to the district veterinary manager and that would be at the point where the initial decision was being queried. The stockholder is not entirely without the ability to make representations under our procedures. The whole situation will be governed, when the Committee adopts, as I hope that it will, the amendments that we have tabled on the issues to be taken into account by the justice, on the procedure for issuing the initial notice and, when I lay the amendments, on the protocol governing slaughter. There are all those restraints on the way in which we carry out the measures. To override those and to build in another legal diversion that would slow down the process when all those safeguards will be built in could not only be detrimental to disease control but would also undermine the real interests of the farming sector.

Baroness Mallalieu: We are not dealing with animals that are infected or that are dangerous contacts, but animals in the firebreak situation. What delay does the Minister envisage being caused by providing a copy of the evidence that will be presented to the magistrate and telling the farmer at what time the application is to be made? How much time will be lost by putting that safeguard into the process?

Lord Whitty: In this context we are not dealing with the sworn evidence, but with representation. Representation and the legal right to representation brings with it the right to have time to take legal advice on the representations and to have a reasonable time to draw up the facts. That in itself is a potentially delaying process and it could be argued that failure to provide adequate time for those representations would be a delaying process. It is wrong to say that that does not lead to delay. One cannot instantaneously provide for an effective means of representation without envisaging the possibility of delay. Therefore, any legal rights to representation would potentially bring that danger.

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry that the noble Lord seems unable to grasp the thread that has run through every single objection to the Bill; that is, that the animals whom human beings love and have bred for years are not the same as, for example, a cheese store. The noble Lord prays in aid the Food Safety Act. I have been directly concerned—not personally—with two cheese businesses which have been closed down under the Food Safety Act by these very provisions.
	A farmer losing his stock is very different from a cheesemonger losing his cheese stock, which can be replaced quite easily and to which there is no sentiment attached. It is the emotional connection between the farmer and his animals which requires the Bill to be much softer than the harsh terms of, for example, the Food Safety Act. Will the Minister take on board that the problems with the foot and mouth outbreak arose because people were jackbooting into farms, upsetting the farmers and not understanding their concern for their animals? That is why we have objected so strongly to the Bill.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall of course read Hansard carefully. I am shocked. I think that the Minister is saying that the situation is such that there is no time to have any regard to the rules of natural justice under the law. I have never heard such a proposition in any sense. But I shall read Hansard carefully. If that is the attitude of the Government on this issue, it will be a very serious matter. I have never heard it suggested, even in these circumstances, that there just is not time to give anyone the information or the chance of an emergency hearing. I cannot accept that a Bill in that form could pass through this House.

Earl Peel: Perhaps I may refer the Minister back to the letter he wrote on 25th September. He has been dogmatic in his response. As my noble friend said, he has clearly given the impression to the Committee that he has no intention of giving at all on these amendments. Yet, within the annex of that letter, there was an indication from the Minister that the two specific problems that we are discussing would be considered by the Government. At that time he was being a little more pragmatic. Clearly, something has happened between the writing of the letter and his addressing the House; I wonder what it is.

Lord Whitty: The letter indicates a number of safeguards we propose to build in plus—referred to in the annex—the proposition that we should have a protocol on the procedure for slaughter. That is different from giving a right to representation in every case where proceedings are adopted. To return to the point made by the noble Countess, clearly no one who was involved with this disease could walk away from it without recognising the extreme trauma that many farmers and others went through in the eradication of it. It is also regrettably true that the failure to control the disease at various points during the epidemic, both in this and in other countries, led to far more problems and animal owners suffering by the consequent slaughter of their animals than would have been the case had disease control measures been effectively carried out. That is why we seek to speed up the process. It is to protect the large number of farmers who potentially might be affected.
	The provision requiring sworn statements was dealt with in the previous group of amendments. That would be a delaying factor. The provision that we should have a legal right to representation, which we are dealing with in this group, could be an additional delaying factor. One can see the consequences of that, in terms of the slowness in controlling the disease, would be much more trauma, distress, animal disease and economic damage. That is why we propose these changes. We are not suspending natural justice; we are trying to build in reasonable requirements on how both the officer and the magistrate carry out their roles. But we are trying to avoid the possibility of building in delay and thereby undermining the whole disease control effort.

The Countess of Mar: In order to get matters into perspective, can the noble Lord remind the Committee in how many cases where court proceedings were either threatened or invoked during the recent foot and mouth disease did the animal owners concerned have animals which were eventually infected by foot and mouth disease?

Lord Whitty: I have given that figure several times and the noble Countess has queried it several times. It was not the number of cases that ended up in court, but the number that were delayed by people thinking that they had the ability eventually to go to court. In most cases people either eventually complied or the local vets looked at the situation again as is provided by the representations to the DBM and changed their minds. In some cases changing their mind was the wrong thing to do because some of their farms also ended up being infected.
	I am perfectly prepared to write to the noble Countess and give her those figures again. But the issue is not how many ended up in court but how much of a delay was built in because people thought they could eventually go to court and avoid the culling of these animals.

Baroness Byford: I have to say that I think that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer to a very genuine debate on these two amendments. Members of the Committee will understand why I was very concerned that at this stage we would not be looking to put them to a vote. The Minister in his response said that he did not think there was—I cannot remember his exact expression—enough emotional weight to it. For goodness sake, we can all raise our voices and speak a little louder. I ask the Minister not to be under any illusion that we in this Chamber—and I suspect many outside—feel bitterly disappointed with the debate that has just taken place. At this stage I do not intend to push the matter to a vote. However, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their responses in the light of what has been said in the Chamber today. I cannot give the noble Lord a stronger warning than that. I am very serious. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 212A I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment be agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 213 to 222 under the pre-emption rules.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 212A:
	Page 3, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—
	"(5) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—
	(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
	(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
	(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.
	(6) The third condition is that—
	(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 212A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233A, 235A, 245A, 254A, 262A, 279A, 283A and 292A. The amendments deal with some of the qualifications to which I referred in the earlier debate. Their purpose is to ensure that in future disease outbreaks we are able to take swift and rapid action but, at the same time, introduce safeguards substantially to reinforce the conditions under which a warrant can be awarded.
	Taken as a whole, the changes satisfy the need to ensure that the powers are subject to a rigorous and transparent test of reasonableness and that the overall balance—this is a balance of public interest—takes proper account of the rights of the farmer.
	The provisions in Amendment No. 212A spell out clearly how the officer in the first place carries out the giving of notice. The subsequent amendments add to that in terms of the issues that a JP has to take into account. I shall not say any more at this point since these are the safeguards that I have been referring to over the past half an hour.

Baroness Byford: I am sorry again to be unhappy with the proposed words; I accept the Minister's genuineness in trying to table an amendment that we all find satisfactory. I have three comments to make about the amendment. I object to the third condition in new subsection (6). It refers to,
	"notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises".
	I find that totally unsatisfactory. Who defines what is a conspicuous place? Someone may enter the premises and unwittingly move the notice. The Government must table a much better worded provision. Other amendments suggest that the notice should be given to the person whose property it is or the person who looks after the animals. The wording of the amendment is most unsatisfactory.
	Will the Minister explain further the choice of words in proposed new paragraph (b):
	"object of entering the premises"?
	Premises can be anything. As the Minister will be aware, many farmers have had to diversify to keep their heads above water. So in properties, other businesses will operate freely and independently that are nothing to do with the farmer concerned, but there is no definition of what premises the Government seek to include.
	Before I move on, Amendment No. 235A states:
	"A warrant issued under subsection (3) must be executed only at a reasonable hour".
	We have discussed hours and tabled many different amendments about them, but here again we have an amendment that states, "a reasonable hour". It would help the Committee enormously if the Minister would respond to those three queries. I am most unhappy about the first.

Lord Greaves: I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Clause 6(6)(a) and (b) are of most concern. Paragraph (a) states:
	"the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent".
	What does that mean? Does it mean that the person does not live on the premises concerned? Perhaps he owns two farms at either end of the village but everyone knows where he is—he has not absconded and is not an absentee in a real sense but is simply not present on the premises concerned. It requires much tighter wording to allow for the case in which people reasonably know where the person is although he is not actually present. Otherwise, in circumstances of panic, chaos and, in many cases, a desire to get on with the job—as happened during the recent foot and mouth outbreak—it is easy for people to go by the words written on paper, not the spirit behind them. So the provision must be written more tightly so that people cannot abuse it simply because someone who is present in the village or area of the land is not on the premises. That is one concern.
	Our second concern relates to new paragraph (b), which states:
	"an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply ... would defeat the object of entering the premises".
	Obviously, if a raid is conducted on premises where it is suspected that drugs are being kept, people do not give notice or go to a magistrate to return later because the suspects will have gone and will have taken the stuff away. Everyone knows that under most circumstances in which warrants are issued, people go to hammer on the door—or, more likely, they take one of those fancy new machines that hammer the door down.
	We are not discussing such circumstances. It may be that it is suspected that people may remove their stock—that appears to be what the provision covers. They may have a dozen sheep, put them in a van and drive them away, so that they are lost. I cannot imagine that that will happen often, but it may in some circumstances. In that case, the paragraph should spell out rather more clearly what is covered. Otherwise, what does the provision mean and in what circumstances does the Minister think that it may be invoked?
	Having said that, and sharing the concern of the noble Baroness about those two paragraphs, which need to be reconsidered, we welcome the movement that has been made in the wording of the earlier new subsection in the amendment and the subsequent amendments linked to it in the group, in which the wording is better than that proposed before. It is improved, clearer and fairer. A little progress has been made and it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for achieving that. But paragraphs (a) and (b) still give rise to great concern. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we ask the Minister to reconsider them to try to achieve an improved wording between now and Report.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I am also worried by new subsection (6)(b), in which we look into a black hole of ministerial subjectivity. I share the understanding articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the provision is presumably to be written into the Bill in case the occupier absconds with the stock, barricades the place or takes some other action that would impede the visit of the inspector. But if that is possible in any case, it may be possible in every case. The clause could perfectly well be invoked to say, "We shall never give notice because it is always a possibility that the chap will have made off with the stock or will barricade the place so that we cannot get in."
	The chances of exploiting new subsection (6)(b) are enormous and potentially dangerous. Of course, a few rogues may behave like that, but the provision should not be written into the Bill. It is extremely dangerous to allow it to be invoked by anyone at any time. Perhaps I am being pessimistic; but I have learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I must not be optimistic.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may return the compliment to the right reverend Prelate. I was just wondering what was happening to me when he suddenly came out with that wonderful phrase, "a black hole of ministerial subjectivity." Then I understood: I had a sense of falling, falling and never coming to a stop. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate.

The Countess of Mar: Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I appreciate the Minister's attempt to soften the provision; I have been critical of the Minister on other provisions. But I, too, am concerned about new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, what happens if the person is out shopping or working? We discussed in relation to the part of the Bill covering scrapie the question of premises being unoccupied.
	Perhaps the Minister can help us by telling us what sort of situations he envisages falling under new paragraph (b). The police already have powers to prosecute anyone who moves animals during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If it is already known that animals are on the premises—which presumably it will be if a warrant is applied for—and inspectors turn up at the premises and no animals are present, the owner or keeper can be prosecuted for moving them. So what other situations does the Minister envisage? I should be grateful if he would tell the Committee.

Lord Carter: Could my noble friend the Minister deal with the interesting point made by the right reverend Prelate in his response? I heard the phrase "black hole of ministerial subjectivity". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil—and others, too, perhaps—thinks that every Minister spends all his time in a black hole of ministerial subjectivity. I can assure him that that is not the case—in this Government, at least.
	It would be helpful if my noble friend could confirm that all Ministers are subject at all times to a public law requirement to behave with reasonableness and proportion. That is an important point. If they do not behave in that way, they are subject to judicial review. So, it is not feasible that Ministers would exploit the proposed subsection (6)(b) in the way suggested by the right reverend Prelate. If they did, they would be in breach of their obligations under public law.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: That tempts me to intervene. I had the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had been earning point after point of merit from the Government during the passage of the Bill for the marvellous and gallant way in which he has saved them from almost impossibly bad argument. Now, he has said something that runs contrary to the spirit—if that is the right word—of the Bill. The words, which will be inscribed in Hansard, will also be inscribed in my memory; I shall be tempted to use them again and again.

Lord Carter: If I have behaved in that way, it was certainly not in the hope of promotion.

Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Carter makes a point that is an essential qualification to all the concerns that have been expressed about paragraphs (a) and (b). In general, the rest of the amendments have been welcomed.
	Not only is the Minister obliged to behave reasonably and not descend into the black hole into which the right reverend Prelate tempted us, but his officers are also required to do so in the circumstances. They must reasonably ensure that, if there is nobody there, they have made every effort to find the most conspicuous place to leave the notice and ensure that they arrive at a time at which it could reasonably be expected that the occupier would be there. That goes back to the other point, in the later amendment, about reasonableness. At an earlier stage of the Bill's passage, we discussed whether it was correct to identify certain hours as reasonable for office workers and for farmers. We take that point about reasonableness, and that is why it must apply to farming practice and to the hours thought likely to be kept by the occupier. Throughout, we must behave reasonably.
	That also applies to the definition of premises. There is no point in having access to premises that have nothing to do with the carrying out of the vaccination, culling or blood testing covered by the powers included at various points in the Bill. Reasonableness runs through it all. Despite the deep suspicion that several noble Lords expressed about the motives and behaviour of departmental staff, we are all subject to the reasonableness criterion.
	Most concern expressed related to the proposed new subsection (6)(b). Regrettably, there will, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, be a few rogues about. Some will try, if they get too much notice of the matter, to use the notice of application for warrant to avoid the implications. That might mean moving the animals around, or it might mean some other means of preventing the application of disease control measures. We must provide for that in the Bill, but, again, reasonableness applies. We could not, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, treat every farmer as being likely to use the notice of application for warrant as a reason for trying not to comply with the law. That is not the normal behaviour of the farming community. However, for a particular case, for which there was prior intelligence or previous behaviour that indicated that it might happen, it would be reasonable for an officer to vary the procedure to avoid that result.
	I am happy to say to the Committee that we will consider the precise wording of the amendment to see whether there are ways in which we could avoid raising anxieties of the type mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. However, we need a power to vary procedure for cases in which intelligence suggests that a farmer or stockholder might take evasive action, were he to receive early notice of an application for warrant. That is why proposed subsection (6)(b) is there. However, as with all the other provisions, it is, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, subject to the requirement to behave reasonably.

Baroness Byford: I ask the Minister to pay particular regard to proposed subsection (6)(a) and to how officials will notify people. I am unhappy with the phrase "conspicuous place on the premises". As I said, there are, sometimes, 10 or 15 businesses in one highly developed area. What if somebody left a message for somebody else in the wrong building or left a message for the wrong person? Of all things, that provision should be tightened up. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: The Minister said that an officer or inspector—I cannot remember which—could vary the power. Those were his words. That goes almost to the heart of the problem, as it relates to the exercise of the power. I do not object to the creation of the power; we need it for a national emergency. It is the exercise of that power that worries me. Can the Minister consider how that relates to flexibility and the way in which it is administered? It is not a difficult concept, but it is difficult to draft.

Lord Jopling: It seems to me that, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, several amendments later on the list will fall. One of those is Amendment No. 216, which stands in my name. In it, I have suggested that it might be sensible for details of the time and place at which a magistrate will deal with an application to be given to the occupier so that he might have the opportunity to make representations at that time. The law should not run its course behind closed doors.
	Will the Minister consider amending his amendment on Report, so that it incorporates something on the lines of Amendment No. 216 that will give the occupier of premises the opportunity to know where and when the application is to be made? Surely, it is only fair that someone whose premises are to be taken over should have the opportunity to hear the case before the magistrate and to make representations if he feels that it is unfair. This is my only opportunity at this stage to raise that matter. I realise that my amendment—or something like it—cannot be made, if the amendment that we are debating now is agreed to. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether on Report he would give a fair wind to a similar amendment to his amendment.

Lord Whitty: Although I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was ever present at this debate, he was probably not in the Committee when we previously discussed representation. I would not be prepared to accede to an amendment such as his Amendment No. 216—which, as he rightly said and the Deputy Chairman of Committees indicated, would fall were this group of amendments to pass—for the reasons I have spelt out before.
	Any right of representation runs a risk of slowing down the process and is unprecedented in other forms of warrant application. There is no good reason—indeed, there are good reasons in the opposite direction in terms of the need for speed and the effective carrying out of disease control measures—why normal warrant procedures should be varied in this case. I would therefore not be inclined to accept the noble Lord's amendment were we not to pass Amendment No. 212A and go on to debate it. I regret to say that neither am I prepared to table a further amendment in that respect. The other safeguards I have built in, plus the protocol we propose, in my view provide adequate safeguard.

Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sorry that I was not in my place when the issue was discussed earlier. I had to attend a Select Committee upstairs.

Baroness Byford: Will the Minister indicate how many amendments will not be taken if we accept the amendment currently under discussion?

Lord Whitty: It is not entirely a matter for me. The Deputy Chairman of Committees read out the amendments that could not be taken were this one to be passed. They are Amendments Nos. 213 to 222. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 213 to 222 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 223:
	Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) If animals are mistakenly slaughtered, the farmer shall receive compensation at a level of 100 per cent of the full market value immediately prior to slaughter plus interest from that day at base rate plus 5 per cent."

The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Baroness speaks to her amendment, surely we have worked out everything up to the end of line 37 in the Bill? Amendment No. 223 refers to line 37. Should we not be on Amendment No. 225, which refers to page 4, line 4? I am sorry to correct the Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Baroness Byford: I hope that I am technically correct in continuing because I am trying to make an insertion. With the increasing sophistication of testing methods and the fact that a great deal of livestock will probably be dealt with by on-farm testing, the chances for error other than human error will be greatly reduced.
	It is a widely accepted rule that anyone who suffers due to negligence or mistake of another must receive adequate compensation. Even this formula would hardly cover in this case the value of the animals and the loss of production. The Government obviously believe that farmers have to be goaded into behaving in the way the state wishes. I am sure that the Minister does not really believe that, but that is the feel outside the Committee.
	It appears that the Government wish to believe that their servants are always perfect and behave impeccably. I am sure that most of them try to do so, but the truth is that few farmers have to be goaded and a few state servants have to be restrained. That is why the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We wish to support the amendment. If animals are mistakenly slaughtered, which has occurred in the past, farmers should receive compensation to the level of 100 per cent of the full market value under the amendment's conditions. There is nothing worse to learn from farmers and their families than that their stock has been mistakenly slaughtered: it is a feeling of absolute despair. The amendment can never mitigate that feeling but it at least provides some redress. It is essential to this legislation.

Lord Whitty: While I appreciate that we have strayed into slaughter, vaccinations, and everything else in previous debates, this amendment relates specifically to slaughter. Clause 6 is about vaccination. Whatever the merits of the argument, the amendment is in the wrong place. I hope I need say no more to the noble Baroness for her to withdraw it and perhaps resubmit it in the right place.

Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Committee if it is in the wrong place, and particularly to the noble Countess; she was right and I am wrong. I will come back at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 226:
	Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
	"(b) such equipment as he thinks necessary."

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 226 and the related amendments seek to make clear what an inspector is entitled to take on to the premises. They are needed in order to permit expressly an inspector to take any equipment he requires on to the premises. Although it may be presumed that an inspector may carry relevant equipment, there is in theory potential for dispute over whether an inspector can carry equipment into premises unless we specify in the Bill that he is entitled to do so. The amendments are for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 227 I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I will not under the pre-emption rules be able to call Amendments Nos. 228 to 232.

[Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 not moved.]

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 229:
	Page 4, line 6, leave out from "land" to "for" in line 7 and insert "to give such assistance as he is capable of giving"

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I must have stumbled into one of the "black holes of ministerial subjectivity" referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. We have suddenly made a dash: we moved from Amendment No. 212A and the amendments grouped with Amendments Nos. 214 and 219 were missed out. I do not know quite how that happened, but when one is in a black hole of ministerial subjectivity, all sorts of terrible things can happen. I am not sure whether it is my fault, the Minister's or even that of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
	However, I now have the pleasure of moving Amendment No. 229. Some of my amendments have erred on the side of optimism having regard to the Government's prejudice against reasonableness—I admit that—but this amendment is absolutely reasonable beyond any possible ministerial doubt. I can hope only that the Minister will not dream of allowing to continue on the statute book a clause such as the one we are now discussing whereby a representative of the Minister is entitled to ask for such help as he requires in entering premises. It stands to reason that he ought not be able to expect relief from someone who is quite incompetent to give it. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before proceeding further with the amendment, I should inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 230 to 232.

Lord Whitty: The only reason I am not prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment—which is clearly based on the rather open-ended implications of the clause as it stands—is that the amendments to which the Deputy Chairman referred are my amendments and will do the job better. They restrict the kind of person from whom an inspector can require assistance to an owner or occupier, the person in charge of the stock or a person employed by the stockholder or the person in charge of the stock. That limits considerably the clause as it stands and builds in the fact that, because of the way they are employed, such people would be capable of rendering some assistance to an inspector. We believe that that is a better way of dealing with the matter than the method proposed in the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am so sorry. I had not been sufficiently optimistic as to read the noble Lord's amendments. Now that he has told me what they contain, I have the utmost pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Before the noble Lord sits down, the Committee should consider one point. Of course one accepts what the Minister has said in relation to an owner and employees, but I know of a case which occurred during the previous outbreak of foot and mouth disease where the medical condition of a farmer meant that he was unable to assist in such a situation. As someone who has spent long hours toiling in the fields, I have back trouble, as do other people in the farming industry. Sometimes farmers are physically unable to assist, whether or not they would like to. This is perhaps without, in that sense, the description given by the Minister.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: With the noble Lord's permission, I now beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 230:
	Page 4, line 6, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (9A)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 231, I should inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 232.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 231:
	Page 4, line 7, leave out "assistance as he reasonably needs" and insert "personal assistance as is reasonably necessary"

Lord Plumb: All the amendments that I had before me to deal with today have fallen. It is a relief to stand up for a moment and to at least participate in the discussion. I would have loved to have participated in some of the discussions which took place earlier, but we have now reached a stage of some repetition. I hope that all the points that have been made have been recognised and will be used. Certainly we shall come back to many of them when we get to Report stage.
	This may seem a small amendment because it is a question of word adjustment—that is, to leave out "assistance as he reasonably needs" and to insert "personal assistance as is reasonably necessary". As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, there are times during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease when tensions are running high, when there are difficulties in the farming family itself, when there are difficulties between the farmer and the inspector or those who are coming in to take over and be responsible for the removal of stock and so on. We must remember the considerable stress and tension that exists among the farming families, the workers and so on, the minimum amount of labour and therefore the isolation that many suffer.
	At such a time, most will not hesitate to co-operate with veterinary inspectors in handling the stock and the equipment that is so essential and necessary at times when speed is of the essence. As the Minister reminded us in the course of previous discussions, assistance and the speed of operation is important—but only as is reasonably necessary. It may seem trivial, but to the people concerned it is a matter of importance. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: While not dissenting from much of what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, again I believe that my Amendment No. 232 is better. Whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, seeks to insert the wording "personal assistance as is reasonably necessary", my Amendment No. 232 seeks to insert the words "may reasonably require". There may be some doubt about the meaning of "personal" in such circumstances and I believe that my wording is better. Taken together with my subsequent amendments, it deals with the issue more effectively. So while I accept the argument, I do not accept the amendment.

Lord Plumb: It is at least something that the Minister accepts the argument on an occasion such as this. I have a sense of relief that the first time I stand up my argument is accepted. The Minister claims that he would like fewer words than the ones I have suggested. I disagree with him—I have that privilege—in the same way as he disagreed with me over my wording. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 232:
	Page 4, line 7, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"

Lord Whitty: As I have spoken to this amendment during the discussions on the previous two amendments, I beg to move it reasonably formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 233 and 233A:
	Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
	"(9A) The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) the occupier of the premises;
	(b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
	(c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."
	Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) If the inspector enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under subsection (3) he must at the time of entry—
	(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises)
	(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 234:
	Page 4, line 11, leave out "month" and insert "week"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Amendment No. 234 is a precise amendment which seeks to ensure that warrants will remain in force for a week rather than for a month as it presently stands in the legislation. Given that the diseases with which we are dealing are all infectious diseases, clearly if we cannot deal with a situation within hours, or at least one day, there is something radically wrong if it has to lie for one month. We believe that the amendment will help to speed up the process, which is what the Minister desires. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Although it may be desirable to carry out most of the actions the ministry is being empowered to carry out within a week, at the height of an epidemic it may well not be able to do so. The amendment would mean an additional delay in terms of reapplying for a warrant after seven days.
	The one-month validity of the warrant procedure is standard in all other warrant arrangements. For the reasons I have stated, I do not see an overwhelming reason to vary that—although I agree that the objective must be to carry out the action in significantly less than a week if we possibly can.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that reply. It would depend on how effectively the authorities carried out what was desired in the warrant during that time period. The legislation should be tightened up to ensure that effective speed is of the essence. I note what the Minister says. I know the protocol in relation to normal warrants lying there for one month. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 235:
	Page 4, line 12, at end insert "and the warrant shall be dated by the justice of the peace"

Baroness Byford: My noble friend has just won the argument with the Minister. I hope to do more than win the argument. I hope to win my amendment.
	In seriousness, we discussed this matter yesterday and I do not understand why the Government do not accept the amendment. It is surely basic that a warrant should be dated by the justice of the peace who signs it. We do not want warrants lying around without a date on them. In my opinion all warrants should be dated, and I am sure that most are.
	My only doubt concerns the point at which they are dated. Without being a member of the police force or working in the courts, it is difficult to prove that the dating of warrants is ever open to conjecture. There are, however, persistent tales of warrants being applied for, obtained and held undated until required.
	Our concern is simply to ensure that in matters relating to the Bill any warrant issued is dated at the point of signature. It is, we believe, immaterial whether the date is added to the form as part of its production process or whether it is added by the magistrate during the signing process. All that matters is that it should be he or she who signs the relevant form. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I totally agree with the amendment. It is entirely logical—indeed essential. If a warrant is not dated, it will make it extremely difficult to administer.

The Countess of Mar: Can the Minister confirm the legal situation in regard to magistrates signing warrants? In a different context, I have seen a warrant signed by a magistrate where the details were left for whomsoever was concerned to fill in. I was frankly appalled. So, even if the normal practice is for a magistrate to sign and date a warrant—which I imagine it is—there should be a reference on the face of the Bill.

Lord Jopling: The amendment proposed by my noble friend has broad support on all sides of the Committee. The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has supported it, and we have heard support from the Cross Benches.
	I hate to say this to my noble friend, but I do not think that the wording of her amendment follows her argument. She said that a magistrate should date a warrant when he signs it. The amendment does not state that. As I read it, it leaves it open for a magistrate to sign the warrant and date it at a different time.
	I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It seems eminently sensible. Perhaps we can return to it on Report. If the amendment could be changed to the effect that the warrant should be dated by the justice of the peace at the time of signing, that would seem to fulfil the words that my noble friend used. I hate to argue with her because my admiration for her is unbounded; however, I believe that that would be an improvement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, agrees.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly agree that this type of rider should apply in this case. After all, in relation to a previous amendment the Minister spelt out the desirability of a warrant lying for a one-month period. It would make the situation far more precise if the magistrate not only signed the warrant but dated it as well.

Lord Whitty: My advice is that this amendment or any similar provision is unnecessary. It is already general practice. It is not specified on the face of other Acts containing references to warrants that the magistrate shall date the warrant, or that anyone shall date it, at the point at which it is granted. That is the practice.
	I hear what Members of the Committee say about the matter. I shall re-examine it. I do not think that the wording of the amendment would cover all circumstances in any case. I need to double-check the legal advice—which is normally: if a provision is unnecessary, do not include it. If that is indeed the case, I shall need to report back. I take some of the arguments that clarity as regards the length of time and the date from which a warrant should run could be quite important. I shall examine the matter again.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Jopling. He rightly points out something that we missed. I indicated our intention and I apologise that we have not defined the amendment tightly enough. I thank the Minister for his response and look forward to his proposal.
	He referred to current practice, but the feeling on all sides of the Committee is that we are dealing with something slightly different from a commodity or whatever else a warrant may concern. Any help that the Minister can give to reassure those who are likely to have their animals killed would be of great benefit. It would be a great addition to the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 235A:
	Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) A warrant issued under subsection (3) must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency.
	( ) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—
	(a) a copy of the warrant;
	(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the inspector and any other person entering the premises with him."

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: We must remember that the amendment refers to vaccination. I therefore question the first subsection:
	"A warrant issued under subsection (3) must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency".
	In relation to vaccination, surely issuing the warrant "at a reasonable hour" is enough. I cannot foresee any situation in which such a warrant should be issued in the middle of the night. I ask the Minister to reconsider this provision in the light of the whole Bill. I cannot see that a state of urgency would arise requiring a warrant relating to vaccination to be issued at some unearthly hour.

Lord Whitty: If we are to adopt pre-emptive vaccination as a key disease control measure, I envisage circumstances in which failure to gain access could jeopardise the whole vaccination strategy in a firebreak situation. For example, during the last outbreak, we contemplated vaccination when the disease appeared to be moving in the direction of the pig population of the East Riding. Had we engaged in a firebreak vaccination, the plan could have been undermined if we had missed significant premises because a person was not available at a particular hour. Admittedly, in most circumstances, vaccination would not be quite as urgent as culling. However, in some circumstances it might be, which is why the emergency override is included.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 236:
	Page 4, line 15, at end insert "unless there are mitigating circumstances"

Baroness Byford: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 266 and 294, because they, too, deal with adding the insert, "unless there are mitigating circumstances". Upon examination, the paragraph is an extremely bold and bleak statement. For example, if I, the inspector, demand that you, the Minister, the occupier of the land and the keeper of pigs, help me to round them up and you refuse, you are committing an offence. However, when asked to help, you could be trying to keep a sick horse or dog alive until the vet arrives, helping an elderly relative who has fallen, or be fresh from the accident and emergency department after having fallen yourself. Regardless of the circumstances, I, the inspector, have demanded assistance and you have refused and so an offence has been committed.
	I do not think that the Government intend that to happen as a result of the Bill. We talked about reasonableness, and the noble Lord may refer me back to that. However, I hope that the Minister can take on board the five additional words that are proposed.
	Amendment No. 264 is an alternative response, for which the general argument is the same. However, at this stage I wish to move Amendment No. 236, and the same argument applies to Amendments Nos. 266 and 294. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Baroness's amendment. It goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was talking about earlier.
	I think immediately of my neighbour, who is now well into her 90s, but, when she was well into her 80s she and her sister, who is a year younger, kept a flock of sheep. Both were crippled with arthritis and unable to go out and about. People in the village helped them with their sheep whenever they needed it. My neighbour and her sister were able to keep an eye on the animals, but, when they needed help with them, they had to ring someone else. Although they were the keepers of the animals, they would have been unable to help with them. Those and other circumstances that the noble Baroness mentioned need to be taken into account, and it is not reasonable to expect elderly people to tend a flock of sheep. I urge the Minister to take that into account.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Even a few hours ago, I would have hoped that the Minister would accept this reasonable and modest amendment, which was so charmingly moved. The Minister said earlier that reasonableness runs through all of this. I hope that his dictum is of general application. Am I misquoting him? I thought that I heard him say that just now—I woke up, so great was the shock. I hope that his wonderful statement was not so narrow in its focus as to be almost meaningless. I cherish the hope that it has a broad application. I cannot believe that the Minister would be so obstinate—I almost said pig-headed—as to refuse the amendment.

Lord Carter: I am afraid that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that a few moments ago we accepted an amendment to include in the Bill "assistance as he may reasonably require". It is already included in the Bill, so the noble Lord should be very happy indeed.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment. Six miles from where I live in North Yorkshire, during the last foot and mouth disease outbreak, a farmer's son-in-law, in his 40s, died from a heart attack while rounding up a flock of sheep. He should not have been rounding up the sheep. That example shows that in some cases people should not carry out certain activities. I hope that the Minister accepts this reasonable amendment.

Lord Jopling: I strongly support this amendment. Subsection (12)(a) states that a person commits an offence if he is required to give assistance under subsection (9). We have included in subsection (9), through Amendment No. 233, which we have already agreed, the occupiers of the premises.
	Modern agriculture involves far fewer people working on the land, so many farmhouses are occupied by people who have nothing to do with farming. If an inspector asks for assistance from someone who is the occupier of a farm but who has nothing to do with the farm, he falls under this provision. If an inspector asks a farmhouse occupier who is disconnected from agriculture for help with cattle or sheep, under the Bill as it now stands, that person would be committing an offence if he refused. It would be a perfectly fair mitigating circumstance if that person said, "I am only the tenant of the farmhouse; I have nothing to do with the farm; I have never had anything to do with cattle, sheep or pigs, and I am sorry, but go and find someone else to help, because this has nothing to do with me".
	The same might apply to premises formerly used as farm workers' houses on a farm holding, of which there are many. It is important to include a provision to let a person off committing an offence if there are mitigating circumstances. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Lord Carter: Perhaps the noble Lord has not looked over the page at the rest of Amendment No. 233. Paragraphs (b) and (c) meet his point. There is reference to,
	"a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises".
	There are alternatives to the occupier. Paragraph (a) is not the only provision in the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) need to be considered together.

Lord Jopling: I am very sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the amendment says:
	"The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) the occupier of the premises".
	That is what I have been talking about. I was not referring to paragraphs (b) or (c). I was applying my argument entirely to paragraph (a) under Amendment No. 233. I am trying to exempt those who may have no connection to the animals on the premises. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Carter: Amendment No. 233 refers to "the following persons", so each of them is caught: the occupier, the person in charge of the animals or a person under the direction or control of the occupier or the person in charge.

The Countess of Mar: That is where the noble Lord has made a mistake. He used that little word "or", which does not appear in the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow: I support the amendment. I shall speak from a small amount of private experience. I have a few sheep at home. Because we live in Surrey, I also have some stables, which are rented. Those stables are part of my premises. Is the inspector entitled to ask a 14 or 15 year-old girl to round up sheep for slaughter? If she says no, will she be committing a criminal offence? That is what the Bill appears to say. I think that such a young lady—or her parent or guardian or somebody left in local charge—would have mitigating circumstances for saying no. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, there are many occupiers of agricultural premises who are only indirectly associated with agriculture, or even not associated at all. What about somebody who is staying in a farmhouse on a B&B basis? There are a lot of those, particularly in the Yorkshire Dales, where the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, lives. The Government plead reasonableness to avoid their own affairs being put into the Bill. I do not understand why they will not allow others to use reasonable excuse. That is double standards. It is a great pity and does not do credit to Her Majesty's present advisers, but I suppose there is nothing I can do about that.

Lord Monro of Langholm: I should have thought that the Government would jump at the opportunity of an escape clause. We do not want to make people commit offences when there is a perfectly good reason why they should not be involved. The amendment sensibly suggests that there could be mitigating circumstances. The prosecuting authority would not prosecute if there were mitigating circumstances. They would say that it would be a waste of court time, police time and everybody else's time. The amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill on the issue of alleged offences.
	The comments of my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Onslow about people on the land who may have nothing to do with the farm should be followed up. People should not be walking about farms during a foot and mouth epidemic, but nowadays, when there is so much encouragement for people to walk on farms or wherever they want to go, they could be walking across a farm and then be eligible to assist in rounding up cattle under the Bill. It would be ridiculous for them to be involved.
	This simple amendment would surely be a valuable escape route for those who are not involved in the farm and should not be prosecuted under the Bill.

The Countess of Mar: It might also be helpful if we had a definition of "premises". I have looked in the Animal Health Act 1981, but it contains no such definition. The Government could help to clear the issue up in relation to the change of agricultural usage of land and buildings by tabling an amendment on Report with a definition of "premises".

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Surely the issue of holding number, which has not been addressed, is related to the points that have been made.

Lord Whitty: The circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and some others have described clearly could not apply now that we have passed Amendment No. 233. As my noble friend Lord Carter pointed out, all this is subject to Amendment No. 232, which we have just passed, which says that officers and inspectors "may reasonably require". It would not be reasonable for them to require a stable girl to round up cattle or to require a stockbroker who had bought a farmhouse to go out and round up sheep. It would also not be reasonable to enter premises that had nothing to do with animals.
	I shall probably regret waking up the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but this strain of reasonableness is not only my general assertion; we wrote it into this part of the Bill about half an hour ago. The courts and those contemplating bringing prosecutions are used to assessing whether people have behaved reasonably. If we put in mitigating circumstances, there will be all sorts of suggestions as to what such circumstances might be. Relying on reasonableness, as we have agreed to do, is the most appropriate way of dealing with the issue and will meet virtually all the anecdotal concerns raised in the past 20 minutes.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I must make it clear that the noble Lord did not wake me up. He jolted me for a moment into a happier and better world.

The Earl of Onslow: Amendment No. 232 says that the inspector "may reasonably require". The person whom he reasonably requires to do it may equally have reasonable reasons and mitigating circumstances why it would be totally wrong for him to do it. We are talking about those who have reasonable reasons for not carrying out a reasonable requirement because there is somebody else to do it. That is a logical progression.

Baroness Byford: I do not think that the Minister wants to come back again on the amendment. I thank all those who have contributed to this important section of the Bill. I always take the Minister to be a reasonable man, but on this occasion I am not happy with his response and I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 236) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 110.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 237:
	Page 4, line 15, at end insert "without good reason"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This amendment addresses an issue that arises in new subsection (12) on page 4 of the Bill. First, however, I should like to express some uncertainty about the Bill's political correctness. The subsection states that,
	"A person commits an offence if ... he is required to give assistance and ... he fails to give it".
	The "person" seemingly can only be male. I know from the 2001 outbreak, however, that some of the most feisty contestants were female farmers who made their point very clearly indeed. Perhaps the Minister will consider changing the wording to "the person ... is required" and "the person ... fails to give it".
	In this amendment we seek to change the wording of paragraph (b) so that the new subsection states:
	"A person commits an offence if ... he is required to give assistance and ... fails to give it without good reason".
	There may be many good reasons why assistance cannot be given, and it would be extremely harsh if good reasons were not taken into account. We believe that the amendment would be a perfectly good addition to the paragraph. It is a small but necessary adjustment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Many of the arguments that I deployed in relation to Amendment No. 236 apply to this amendment. Given that the authorities are required to act reasonably, they can only require reasonable action on behalf of farmers and others. If the farmer has "good reason", it will not be reasonable for the officer to take action against that reasonable farmer. In this amendment, as with "mitigating circumstances", we are in danger of repeating something that is already both implicit and explicit in the Bill—the requirement on the officer to act reasonably. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The amendment would make a very precise addition to the provision, requiring good reasons for acting. Although we could discuss the definition of "reasonableness" and "reasons" I shall not detain the Committee with such discussion. I have heard the Minister's comments, and I realise that they will be on the record. I shall therefore expect the Government to interpret the provision as the Minister has explained it. Nevertheless, I regret that he has not accepted this amendment which is a small but necessary addition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
	Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Slaughter: power of entry]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 239:
	Page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord on the Front Bench just now inspired us all with new hope when he said that reasonableness ran through the whole matter. Those words are so welcome coming from that source that I feel that one ought never to lose an opportunity to repeat them just in case they were only a dream.
	I hope that the noble Lord's reasonableness will come to my aid in what I now seek to do. Subsection (1) of new Section 62A states:
	"An inspector may at any time enter any premises for the purpose of—
	(a) ascertaining whether a power conferred by or under this Act to cause an animal to be slaughtered should be exercised".
	I know that the statute book is absolutely packed full of the most inelegant, ugly and awful language. I hope that the noble Lord will stir himself and his officials to see whether it would be possible to put this point a little more simply. That is all that I ask in this amendment.
	I refer also to Amendment No. 240. There is no need for me to detain members of the Committee for any length of time as I know how anxious they are to get on to the next business. Subsection (1) of new Section 62A further states:
	"An inspector may at any time enter any premises for the purpose of— ... (b) doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power".
	What on earth do the words "doing anything" mean? What does the Minister contemplate that the inspector might do that makes it necessary to entitle him to do anything? That is a reasonable question. I do not think that I need to repeat it. It seems to me that the Minister is obviously shaking his head in bewilderment as he does not know the answer. However, I hope that he may be able to explain why that particular subsection is necessary. I repeat the words,
	"doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power".
	What on earth is the Minister contemplating? I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 240 to 262A inclusive cannot be called by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Plumb: I speak in complete support of my noble friend Lord Peyton on this issue which, as he said, constitutes a small alteration but a very meaningful one for the people concerned. My noble friend set the tone well and we shall remember this debate. As has been said, reasonableness has run through it. I have tabled an amendment which deals with the same kind of issue. Therefore, I shall not move it when we reach it as the matter is already covered. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take note of some of the points that we have raised. We shall certainly take note of them. If he disagrees with them, we shall bring them back at a later stage. The matter we are discussing is of particular importance. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the small amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Peyton which is nevertheless of considerable importance to many people who look forward to reading a report that states, "We understand the problems that you face".

Lord Carter: I am not sure that I have understood the matter but I believe that the noble Lord inadvertently seeks to remove virtually the whole of Clause 7. Amendment No. 239 states,
	"Page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (1)".
	We have been told of all the amendments that would be pre-empted were that amendment to be accepted. I believe that the noble Lord meant to refer to line 19 of subsection (1). However, the amendment is tabled in such a way that, were it accepted, it would remove the whole of subsection (1) and would also nullify subsection (2). I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind as such a process would wreck the whole of the clause. However, he may have a case to argue as regards the wording of line 19.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Wrecking the whole clause would be a matter of comparative indifference to me. I would lose no sleep over that. Indeed, it would give the Minister every opportunity to bring back something more elegant at the next stage. However the noble Lord reads the amendment, perhaps I may make it clear what I am objecting to. I would like to delete subsection (1)(a). I also ask the Minister to explain what subsection (1)(b) is about.

Lord Carter: In the amendment that the noble Lord has moved he is following the wrong line. We can have the discussion, if my noble friend agrees, on the point which the noble Lord is making.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord need not bother about this at all. I am exceedingly broad minded. All the noble Lord has to do is to say that if he believes my amendment is badly drafted he will return without hesitation at Report stage and move something which he knows will be satisfactory to me and to Members of the Committee.

Lord Whitty: I was well aware that the noble Lord is broad minded, but I thought for one moment that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were being excessively modest by saying that it was a small amendment. As it stands it deletes the totality of the slaughter powers in the Bill, which is a pretty immodest amendment. In this context one would be forgiven for using the term "wrecking amendment" because the provision is a major pillar of the Bill.
	It may well be that the noble Lord can sleep easy in doing that. However, it is not what he intended, as I understand it. I would have to resist that proposal entirely. One cannot do that and at the same time accept the broad conclusions of the Anderson and Follett reports, and the Government's response to those reports, as indicated in the Bill. There is no way in which the Committee could accept this amendment without recognising what it is doing.
	I address the points which the noble Lord was making in terms of the reduced form of his amendment and not what is described in the Marshalled List of amendments. I believe that he is specifically objecting to Clause 7(1)(b), which states,
	"doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power".
	I could say that it means what it says. It does not mean that an inspector can do anything. He can do anything which enables him to carry out the powers of slaughter in this context. It is the same form of words as regards the powers for vaccination or blood-testing. It does not mean that the inspector has carte blanche to do absolutely anything, but to carry out the powers conferred on him by the Bill and by the Animal Health Act. I suspect that that is not a satisfactory explanation for the noble Lord, but that is all the words mean. They are no more sinister than that. In any case, the amendment as it stands would leave such a colossal hole in the Bill that I would have to advise the Committee strenuously to reject it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very tempted to take the opportunity of being destructive. The Bill deserves to be destroyed. Nevertheless, I am sufficiently broad minded and I do not want to put the Minister to endless trouble to revive this horrible creature should I do it mortal harm. However, I would be very content if he accepted my regret that by a slip of the pen I went slightly further than I had intended. I am quite prepared to say that. Other people have done much worse things in your Lordships' House and from the Minister's Bench, too! I am prepared to be reasonable. I withdraw the amendment in the constant hope that the noble Lord will look at the clause to see whether it should be tidied up and made a little clearer. I do not like the provision of "anything he wants to do" in a Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 not moved.]

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 242:
	Page 4, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
	"( ) In this section and sections 62B, 62C and 62D premises excludes dwelling houses and buildings being used for non-agricultural purposes."

Lord Plumb: In a sense I believe that this amendment has already been dealt with, but I make no apology in following it through again. In the debate the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and many others made the point as regards dwellings and the effect on them in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. We are well aware of the fact that farmers are encouraged, and many forced, to diversify and therefore many farm buildings have been converted into medium-sized businesses or offices, storage and so forth. That could create an embarrassing situation in the event of a temporary take-over by inspectors or the police.
	It is therefore difficult to be precise in law in establishing the fact. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made reference to the fact that it is those in charge of the animals who are in control. When there is tension on the farm and one is surrounded by people who are carrying out their respective roles in different buildings, it becomes difficult for entry and for people to know what their position is. Others are isolated. It is difficult to be precise in law on this issue. We have to register the important problem, which is the growing concern as this development spreads to the farmer and the occupier of the building. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Lord's amendment. I have already suggested to the Minister in an earlier debate that there is a definition of "premises" which goes some way to sort out the problem. It might be better if we had a definition section in the Bill which included this word. I support the noble Lord.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I also support this amendment. One of the sadder impacts of the economic situation in the countryside is that many farmhouses have now been sold off and do not have anything to do with the farm itself. Their occupiers are non-agricultural and very often they have some of the farm buildings as well. I believe that this amendment defines those kinds of situations. I fully support it.

Lord Whitty: I understand what is said in this amendment. I have a piece of paper which tells me that this matter has already been covered, but I have temporarily lost it. It indicates that there is a definition of "premises" in the Bill. The premises in this context are those which are relevant to the purposes of the warrant. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to use powers to enter premises which do not house animals or which it was not necessary to enter in order to carry out the purposes of the warrant, be it for vaccination or slaughter.
	Obviously, there may be some complications to that in that private houses may house animals, but access to them would have to be reasonable and proportionate. Any houses which were not concerned with animals and therefore with the purposes of the warrant, would not come within the definition in Clause 7 of the Bill, which is the closest we come to a definition of "premises" for the purposes of this Bill.
	This additional provision would cut across that although it is attempting to achieve the same purpose. The matter is already covered by the Bill as it stands.

The Countess of Mar: We have one or two definitions of "premises" in the Bill. There is a reference in the scrapie section of the Bill which states,
	"premises includes any land, building or other place".
	As regards infected premises, there is reference to premises constituting an infected place at a given time as that which is in force in the notice. I believe that that was the reference to which the Minister was speaking. We need a tighter definition. I shall be grateful if the Minister will take this matter back and look at it.

Lord Plumb: Perhaps I may express my support for the remarks just made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and add the following suggestion for the Minister's consideration. In an effort to be helpful, I should point out to the noble Lord that Amendment No. 242 states:
	"In this section and sections 62B, 62C and 62D premises excludes dwelling houses and buildings being used for non-agricultural purposes".
	I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and ensure that such buildings are included. Otherwise, as the years go by, this will develop into an ever-growing issue. Although we shall return to this matter on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Minister will look again at the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 243:
	Page 4, line 28, after "satisfied" insert "and having heard representations from the owner and keeper of the livestock should they choose to make them within the given timescale,"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: After the word "satisfied" in Section 62B(1) of the 1981 Act, this amendment seeks to insert the words,
	"and having heard representations from the owner and keeper of the livestock should they choose to make them within the given timescale".
	It is most important that such representations should be allowed and that a timescale should be established within which they could be made.
	As I am on my feet, I hope that it is in order for me to speak also to the other amendments under this grouping which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. Perhaps I may begin with Amendment No. 250, which seeks to insert in new Section 62B(4)(c) of the 1981 Act the words,
	"after due effort has been made by the inspector to establish contact with the owner if he is away from the premises".
	Without such wording, it seems to us that forced entry into premises would be the order of the day and could cause an animal to be slaughtered. It is obviously common sense that every effort must be made to contact the owner of the premises.
	Amendment No. 253 seeks to substitute the word "week" for the word "month" in relation to the length of time that a warrant can remain in force. We have already debated this issue in a different context and stated that that is the period we wish to see in the legislation. I stand aside as regards Amendment No. 256, because it has been jointly tabled with the Conservative Opposition. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will wish to be involved in the moving of that amendment.
	Amendment No. 277 contains the same wording as Amendment No. 243. It addresses the power of a warrant to authorise a veterinary inspector to enter premises, if necessary with reasonable force, in order to take tests and samples. The amendment seeks to ensure that the owners of the premises must be given a chance to make representations. We believe that they have a fundamental right to do so.
	Amendment No. 288 refers to new Section 62F(4) of the 1981 Act, which requires,
	"any person on the premises",
	to help in the process of taking tests and samples. Our amendment would ensure that only the owner and employees could do so, not "any person". Finally, Amendment No. 295 relates also to the taking of tests and samples. At present, the Bill states:
	"A person commits an offence if",
	he or she fails to give assistance in the process of taking tests and samples. This amendment returns us to what has been playing on the gramophone, so to speak, most of the evening; namely, the words "without good reason". It seeks to ensure that someone commits such an offence only if he fails to give assistance "without good reason".
	I apologise to the Committee if I seem to have jumped the gun as regards the amendments to which I have just referred. However, they all fall within the group headed by Amendment No. 243, which is the main amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I have no objection to the noble Lord speaking to all these amendments at this time. They were grouped with Amendment No. 243, and many of them follow a progressive theme. However, most of them have already been mentioned in earlier debates. In relation to Amendment No. 243, we are dealing with representation to magistrates. I do not wish to rehearse that ground at great length, but I believe that the provision of rights to representation could undermine the whole disease control approach and that the other built-in safeguards are preferable.
	Amendment No. 250 returns us to the question of whether inserting words like "due effort", "mitigating circumstances", or whatever, would improve the general requirement of the inspector and the officers to act reasonably. Before they determine that the owner is uncontactable, they must have acted reasonably in order to ascertain whether or not the owner could be contacted or when he or she would return. If the matter ever reached the courts, that would be taken into account. All that seems to me to be subsumed under the general duty to act reasonably.
	I believe that we have debated the issue of whether the duration of the warrant should be one week or one month. Although I understand the argument, I do not see an overriding need to alter the general warrant procedure that calls for a period of one month. Indeed, one can conceive of circumstances in a really bad epidemic where we would not be able to carry out all the necessary action within the period of one week.
	Amendment No. 277 also deals with representation, although it relates to slightly different circumstances. Again, I have outlined why I do not believe the right of representation is appropriate in the context of controlling an epidemic. As regards Amendment No. 288, we made clear in an earlier amendment that the requirement for assistance should be reasonable and limited to the keeper of stock. Therefore, the possibility of asking someone extraneous to co-operate with officials will not arise. Indeed, if we limited it solely to the owner of the livestock, we would be confining the provision even more tightly than is the case with the subsection that we adopted earlier. I do not believe that the proposed wording would improve the words that we adopted under Amendment No. 233.
	On the phrase, "without good reason", since officers are required to act reasonably and to take account of other people's reasonable behaviour, the phrase is superfluous. If it were inserted in the proposed place, one would have to put it in all sorts of other legislation and other parts of the Bill. The lawyers and those concerned with parliamentary draftsmanship would resist that strenuously. I understand what lies behind the amendments but they would not add to the Bill.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I listened to what the Minister said on Amendment No. 243. I still believe that,
	"representations from the owner and keeper",
	could be spelt out in relation to a given timescale and that the amendment contains the correct procedure. I note what the Minister said about that and some of the other amendments to which I referred. On his latter remarks and those on Amendment No. 250, the river or stream of sweet reason that seems to be flowing through this debate has again been prayed in aid. In certain circumstances, the matter should be spelt out. In relation to Amendment No. 250, that might involve forced entry into premises to slaughter an animal without contact with the owner of the premises; that is a pretty serious situation with which to be confronted. However, I do not doubt that these matters will arise on Report. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 245A:
	Page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 5 and insert—
	"(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—
	(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
	(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
	(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.
	(4) The third condition is that—
	(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Fookes: As Amendment No. 245A has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 246 to 251 by reason of pre-emption.

[Amendments Nos. 252 to 254 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 254A and 255:
	Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
	"(6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency.
	(7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—
	(a) a copy of the warrant;
	(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the inspector and any other person entering the premises with him."
	Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
	"(b) such equipment as he thinks necessary."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee Stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the recent developments in Zimbabwe.
	My Lords, the excellent House of Commons report on Zimbabwe (HC 813) was published just as the House rose for the recess. I hope that it will be fully debated in due course. Meanwhile, I want to review briefly what is happening to what was so recently a thriving economy and a country free of racial tension and, above all, one where the rule of law prevailed. No longer.
	The land reform programme is not being implemented just to redistribute land from the rich white farmer to the landless black African, although many of those farmers bought their land legally from the state well after independence as derelict land and then created viable farms employing a number of Africans. It is an exercise in naked power. Two years on, that is the only objective that has been achieved. And at what cost.
	On the land, the eviction of the white farmers has meant the eviction also of their African workers. Of 4,000 white-owned farms, a recent survey shows, 2,900 have been served with eviction orders. Of those farmers, more than 1,000 owned only one farm. Incidentally, the white farmers owned not 76 per cent but 29 per cent of the arable land. The farms produced 90 per cent of the wheat crop, which this year will be less than half last year's crop, not least because farmers have been prevented from planting or—where they have planted—irrigating, so that thousands of tonnes of wheat will dry out prematurely.
	Those 3,000 or so farms employed a total of 350,000 farm workers, each of whom will have been supporting on average five dependants. So this month, as the new settlers established themselves, more than 1.5 million Africans are being expelled after months of intimidation and violence. The resettlement packages that farmers are required to pay them will not last long because of inflation. All those human beings will be entirely without resources, having lost their homes and their own small plots. There will no longer be a farm school, a clinic—often dealing with HIV—a store and, on some farms, an orphanage for HIV orphans when even their extended family are dead. Whole communities are being destroyed. There is no work for them, since many farms are now wholly given over to settlers farming four or five hectares each or to "fat cat" Ministers who are not farming at all.
	The Government promised to resettle farm workers; it has resettled about 1 per cent—those who can prove they supported ZANU-PF. Nothing but homelessness and starvation await the others. The plight of many of those originally resettled from the communal areas on the land seized from commercial farmers after a campaign of intimidation and violence by the so-called "Veterans" has not been much better. As in earlier years, little or nothing will be done to support the resettled farmers to prepare the land, and there is no money for agricultural implements or seed and very few tractors. Many have already been arbitrarily returned to the communal areas, having served their purpose with the war veterans in driving the white owners off their farms. That is because the farm has been given to a Minister or senior party figure. That is what Mugabe means by one man, one farm. In one case, 42 families, having built homes and planted fields, were cleared from a farm subsequently allocated to Air Marshal Shiri, notorious for the Matabeleland massacre in the 1980s. Party figures use the people to intimidate a farmer, get the farm de-listed and the settlers are then instantly returned to the communal land.
	Land reform has slashed food production by more than 60 per cent and displaced nearly 2 million people, both former farm workers and new settlers, most of whom will now be landless, unemployed and starving. Education is coming to a grinding halt: the children, many of them on one meal every other day, are too weak to attend school. Their teachers are also starving. Thanks to the incidence of HIV, all too many families are now headed by a child and, with the closure of the farm clinics, the battle against HIV becomes even more difficult. A whole new graveyard has appeared on the road leading out of Harare since last year. The poverty is already such that, as an experienced social worker told me, for the first time she is offered nothing when she enters a house. Hitherto, the poorest of the poor, following their tradition of hospitality, would offer a mug of tea, now not even that.
	This is only the beginning of the death of a nation. The tobacco crop, which will soon be negligible, used to bring in 40 per cent of the country's foreign exchange earnings. Another respectable sum came from the sale of beef from the commercial farms to Libya and the EU countries. Once the cattle ranches were invaded by the "Vets", the settlers briefly placed on land that was fit only for grazing and the farmers driven off, that profitable source of income ended. Before the invasion of the farms, the national herd numbered more than 12.5 million. It is now only 5 million as a result of massive de-stocking following eviction. The land is severely over-grazed now that the communal herd has been brought in, and those cattle suffer from foot and mouth. One farm is already a dustbowl. The damage done to wildlife and the environment is incalculable. The country already faces 60 per cent unemployment, and industry and commerce are losing good workers daily to HIV.
	Inflation is at 136 per cent and rising. The country is in straits for foreign currency even to pay harbour dues in Mozambique to release oil and grain deliveries. Sadly, an offer by the UN to set up a hard-cash basket fund from which private companies could borrow to pay for food imports was rejected. It would threaten the government's absolute control over food supply.
	According to UNCTAD, foreign direct investment fell from 444 million US dollars in 1998 to 5 million dollars in 2001. Now Mugabe's new target is industry. He has said:
	"If companies are not in favour of a partnership with government the state will be compelled to take over the enterprises and transfer their ownership to the indigenous populace".
	The confidence of investors must be at an all-time low. Moreover, in Mugabe's desperate negotiation with the Libyans for more oil, he is selling as much of Zimbabwe's industrial—especially mining—tourist and agricultural infrastructure as he can.
	Meanwhile, the skilled workers, another important part of Zimbabwe's wealth, are leaving the country in droves. Three hundred social workers have left for the UK. Nurses are being extensively recruited by ourselves, the Australians and the New Zealanders. Who will be left to rebuild the country? I dare to say that there are many, both black and white, who will do so, however dire the circumstances, if the most potent evil of all—the deliberate destruction of the rule of law and human rights—can be reversed. That has done incalculable damage. The government have done their best to attack the judiciary, but so far have been able to do so only in the Supreme Court. The High Court remains both brave and principled and has not hesitated to rule many of the evictions, or cases of interference in elections, illegal.
	But the government, although they cannot legally amend the constitution since they lack a two-thirds majority in parliament, are adept at passing new laws to justify illegal acts retrospectively, as in the recent Land Amendment Act. They have produced a new formula for legislation, too. That will give them the right of eviction from any property where the land can be shown to have been in agricultural use at any time in the past 50 years. It will allow them to seize houses with more than five acres of land. Those will of course go to the "Crony Club" and not to the small farmers.
	One of the saddest aspects of life in Zimbabwe today is the way in which people have come to accept that the police are no longer there to enforce the law or to protect the innocent. They have been wholly politicised. A magistrate was violently removed from court by war veterans for granting bail to three MDC supporters accused of burning a tractor. The police took no action. People have given up trying to call the police to protect them or their workers from violence and intimidation. The police are now the "three wise monkeys".
	Brave men and women who resist lawlessness and violence can expect no protection from the forces of law and order. "Vets" closed a security firm because they discovered that a security guard there was an MDC candidate in the local election. The firm was made to dismiss him.
	Economically and financially, Zimbabwe is in a desperate situation—bankrupt and yet still energetically digging itself deeper into the hole it has created. The government are owed 100 billion US dollars by the Democratic Republic of Congo for military and logistical support. Air Zimbabwe is owed 4 million dollars. The taxpayer has lost all that money. The fat cats, the generals and the Ministers have profited hugely in terms of diamonds and mining concessions channelled through OSLEG—the company known as Operation Sovereign Legitimacy—and Oryx. I ask the Minister what is being done to close the Oryx account in London.
	Zimbabwe has been excluded by the IMF and chooses this moment to threaten to take over the industrial infrastructure of the country, having effectively ruined its prosperous agricultural sector and condemned millions of its people to starvation, compounded by HIV. Yet, despite everything, many people, both white and black, still want to stay with their country and bring it back to health. They can do so only if the rule of law is restored, together with human rights. I recognise that the Government are doing all they can behind the scenes to work through SADC countries to achieve that and other objectives. However, they should not be deterred from speaking out through fear of appearing colonialist. It is only Mugabe who professes to think that and who uses it as a convenient weapon. The man in the street in Zimbabwe does not think like that. It would mean a great deal to such people if we were to speak out in the EU, at the UN and, indeed, in the Commonwealth, which has been notably silent.
	We need to bring the SADC nations to understand, as I am sure we are trying to do daily, that the whole future of the region depends for good will on what happens in Zimbabwe. But if they argue that Zimbabwe is an African problem where only the African countries may properly intervene, then they must be told very clearly that, until they do so, the economic quid pro quo of NePAD will not operate.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on taking the opportunity to raise again the important subject of Zimbabwe. In a fast and constantly changing situation, one, if not two, constant themes run through.
	The first is that the government of President Mugabe have portrayed Britain's interest in what is happening in Zimbabwe as a post-colonialist attempt to protect privileged white farmers, and they have portrayed that as the only thing with which we are concerned. That charge is undoubtedly meeting with some resonance in the region, as witnessed by President Sam Nujoma's rather intemperate remarks at the Earth Summit in an attack on the Prime Minister. I say that not as a defence of the Prime Minister—he has broad enough shoulders to take it—but simply to illustrate the constant drip of the charge that we are interested only in the 600 or so white farm families who have been evicted. That is said to be all that we are interested in, and that message is getting home in the region.
	I am as concerned with the 16,000 or 18,000—the figure is hard to come by—families of farm workers and farm managers who have been evicted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned. They are suffering destitution but no one is trying to help them. When discussions continue, as they must, on a rational farm acquisition programme, I hope that the money which the United Nations provides will go to help the farm workers to establish themselves and to ensure that they have a decent chance to farm the land.
	We have witnessed too many occasions, in this country and elsewhere, when compensation has been paid but the people who do the work have been left out. For example, when a huge restructuring took place of the British trawling industry, all the compensation money went to the ship owners and the seamen received nothing. We certainly do not want to see a repetition of that in Zimbabwe.
	The situation is changing. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying so, but I was disappointed in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. In it she repeated everything that is bad in Zimbabwe. That, of course, is true, and to some extent it bears repetition. But no attempt was made to discover how to get out of the situation.
	The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting suspended Zimbabwe for 12 months. The "troika" of Nigeria, South Africa and Australia was charged with trying to sort out the situation. Those countries met after six months and said—disappointingly, I believe—that they would have to wait another six months before they took action and before a final judgment was arrived at. They certainly said that the situation was bad and they certainly expressed great disappointment that the discussions on power sharing have ceased.
	The report of the "troika" states that relations between the government and the opposition have never been so bad. Certainly, if one reads the speech made by Morgan Tsvangirai in Harare yesterday, one will see that. He speaks about mass exterminations, but I believe that possibly that goes too far. It does no good to exaggerate the situation. We must look for a way forward.
	I have been told by what I regard as a reasonably reliable source that a power-sharing agreement was certainly within grasp, if not agreed in any detail. But I understand that agreement was reached on the general principle. However, the next day, the MDC went to the courts to have the election annulled. That organisation is perfectly entitled to do that, but ZANU-PF has used that as an excuse to say that there will be no more discussions on power sharing.
	In a very brief debate we cannot cover all areas. In his speech yesterday, Morgan Tsvangirai called for two things. He called for the intervention of the United Nations under Chapter 7 of the charter, and he called for a transitional executive authority, charged with the responsibility simply to rewrite the constitution. It is perhaps wrong of me to arrive at too hard a judgment, but at first sight that appears to me to be over-exaggerating demands that are not likely to be arrived at.
	We have to find some solution because as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has said, people in Zimbabwe are starving. The situation is becoming more serious as time goes by. Other noble Lords will mention how the rule of law has totally broken down. We have to encourage the "troika" to act swiftly and to continue to try to reach some kind of an arrangement in which there can be power sharing. I do not like power sharing in principle, but I believe that that is possibly the only way forward.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, does not agree with Morgan Tsvangirai in his suggestion that the UN should intervene under Chapter VII of the charter because of the acknowledged threat that exists to the peace of the region arising from this tyranny. Mr Tsvangirai has always called for a re-run of the presidential election, but I do not believe that that will happen. As the noble Lord says, we have to find some way out of the impasse.
	Pressure from outside can help, but there are few ways of applying that without harming the people. We need to get at the generals, the politicians, the police and the CIO while trying to save the masses from the consequences of the dictator's criminal conduct. One approach has been to try to impose travels bans on leading figures of the regime and the EU added to the list in July. But there are gaping holes in these sanctions. The Americans have a wider list than we do, and I suggest that we should pool our names with them and invite others to join in. If they are not members of the EU they can still impose travel bans on a bilateral basis.
	Switzerland, I believe, normally follows EU policy but makes exceptions for people attending UN meetings in accordance with a treaty that was signed in 1949. There should be a mechanism for cancelling those exceptions and prohibiting people from travelling to international gatherings whether in Geneva or New York.
	Recently one prominent crook, Emmerson Mnangegwa, was to travel to Geneva to attend a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but cancelled at the last moment because of potential embarrassment on his arrival in Switzerland. The IPU council passed a resolution deploring the fact that no reply had been received from Mr Mnangagwa—speaker of the assembly—to their inquiries about seven opposition MPs whose human rights had been violated.
	I have mentioned before Mr Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, who is a 62 year-old diabetic and who was deprived of his insulin while in custody so that he almost lost the sight of one eye. Another, Mr David Mpala, was kidnapped and stabbed in the abdomen. His would-be assassins are known, but no investigation has been launched by the police. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, pointed out that that occurs widely. The police do not look into attacks on the MDC.
	Mr Peter Hain told me that we would draw the previous Inter-Parliamentary Union report to the attention of our partners in the European Union and the Commonwealth. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether that has been done and whether she will also see that the EU and the Commonwealth have knowledge of the report by the IPU that was published at the end of September.
	The travel ban should be extended to all Zanu-PF officials, the war veterans, the people working for the Mugabe stooge media and their spouses. I know that it is difficult to get agreement on that in the General Affairs Council of the European Union, but we should try. We should also tighten up the sanctions on arms and dual-use goods. As the Minister is aware, the regime was able to import armoured Mercedes Benz limousines from Germany for the personal use of the president and his cronies. Amazingly, when the Minister looked into the matter, she told me that the EU common military list, which is used in cases of "full scope" embargoes, does not include armoured limousines. Surely that is a serious gap in the list and we should propose that it be amended.
	There is an EU-SADC ministerial conference coming up in Copenhagen in November. When the US had their meeting with SADC recently, they insisted that no representatives from Zimbabwe should be invited. I hope that we shall do the same. The top people in the regime should not be able to evade sanctions by attending multilateral meetings other than by special invitation. We should try to stop up the loopholes.
	The Commonwealth has not been effective in bringing about change in Zimbabwe, and the device of the "troika", mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in particular has been shown up as having no teeth. At their recent meeting they acknowledged that the Secretary-General had been unable to establish a dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe, and Mugabe had ignored the "troika's" invitation to Abuja, but all they could do was to express regret once and disappointment twice.
	At least the Commonwealth should commission an independent study on the crisis of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, so that it has a better appreciation of the facts on which to base its decisions. Such a study would also be useful to SADC, which decided not to let Mugabe become deputy chairman in 2003, but as a matter of expediency, and not because of his violations of human rights.
	At the CHOGM in March 2002, the heads of government reiterated their commitment to democracy, good governance, human rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law, all of which are absent in Zimbabwe. But because of the tendency to concentrate exclusively on the land reform issue, there has been a lamentable failure to address those principles which, ironically, are enshrined in the Harare Declaration. It is time the Commonwealth faced up to the gross breaches of its core values, and to proclaim them before the world.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for again giving us the opportunity to debate the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately the plight of the 12 million Zimbabweans and Robert Mugabe's continuing tyranny have been overshadowed by the media focus on international terrorism, the imminent war against Iraq and numerous financial scandals.
	It is probably true that Mr Mugabe does not cause many sleepless nights in Washington or major European capitals. He presents little threat beyond the borders of his small, land-locked and once thriving country. Certainly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned, the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe is not only destabilising the economy of southern Africa, but also endangering the lives of millions of faceless African men, women and children by exacerbating the spread of famine and AIDS.
	Despite some international huffing and puffing, and a batch of sanctions here and there, Mugabe is allowed to carry on persecuting his political opponents, torturing prisoners, rigging elections, kicking farmers off their land, throwing farm labourers and their families into poverty, extending his personal wealth and destroying the very country that he fought so hard to liberate.
	What can Her Majesty's Government do about it? I fear the answer is not much. We can continue to shake our heads, thunder disapproval from afar and lobby behind the scenes within the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union. We can keep encouraging the MDC opposition; we can hope that a government of national unity will somehow eventually emerge; and we can assist British nationals living in Zimbabwe who want to come here. But Mugabe still sails on.
	We must not be indifferent. Britain has an historical obligation to all the people of Zimbabwe. In my humble view, there are four ways in which Her Majesty's Government can respond to recent events. The first, following the recent "troika" meeting in Abuja—already mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Avebury—which sadly reached deadlock, is to support the Australian Prime Minister in his endeavours to have Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth. All efforts to promote reconciliation have clearly failed. It is depressing that the Presidents of South Africa and Nigeria are not prepared to take a more decisive and affirmative stand. Perhaps they feel that Zimbabwe's expulsion would not help and could effectively take away their opportunity for continued diplomatic pressure on Mugabe.
	A second option is to focus aid initiatives, both to relieve famine and to control the spread of HIV, in such a way that the food and medicines are more effectively targeted at the people in need and by-pass Zimbabwean government officials. We need to ensure that tonnes of well-intentioned aid reach those in need and are no longer hijacked and distributed as political favours.
	I hesitate to mention the third option because in the current climate it is totally impractical, but, in theory, Britain could push for a strong UN resolution threatening President Mugabe with punitive action if he does not end his rule of terror. We could then have the option of international military force to enforce what is now called a "regime change". I appreciate that military action by Her Majesty's Government could never be an option.
	The fourth option appears more realistic. Specifically, that is to put more pressure on the South African Government and SADC to take more decisive action. While our direct influence over Zimbabwe may be greatly diminished in recent years, South Africa continues to wield enormous economic influence over Zimbabwe. Among the many political and economic apron strings between those neighbouring countries, South Africa still supplies bankrupt Zimbabwe with free electricity. The Ian Smith government was effectively brought down when John Vorster—then South Africa's Prime Minister—effectively switched off the lights in Rhodesia. Thirty years on, President Mbeki wields the same capacity to switch off the lights on Robert Mugabe.
	I recognise that the South African President finds himself in an invidious position. Whatever anger he might feel about Mugabe's recent conduct, I understand how he does not want his country to be perceived as anti-African, and I appreciate the bonds of liberation solidarity felt by a strong constituency within the ANC. And yet, for President Mbeki, surely there must come a point when enough is enough. When that time comes, and it may not be too far away, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will provide every support to the South African President.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, in the spring of 2001 my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, then a Back-Bencher, led a delegation of lawyers for the International Bar Association to Zimbabwe. They concluded that the rule of law in that country was in grave peril. A year later, sad to say, it has gone.
	I turn first to the judiciary. On 13th September last, 65 year-old Judge Blackie, who had previously made a decision adverse to a government minister, was arrested at his home at 4 a.m. He was taken to a communal gaol and refused food, medication and access to a lawyer for more than 30 hours. An application for habeas corpus was dismissed out of hand. He was only able to resume liberty four days later, still facing charges which the rest of the world regard as trumped up. Chief Justice Chaskelson of South Africa robustly criticised that state of affairs. It was designed, he said, to humiliate the independent judge and to intimidate any democratically minded judge. That is the judiciary.
	Secondly, I turn to democracy. In the past year, attempts to investigate the validity of the latest presidential election and to ensure the validity of the next local government elections have depended upon access to the electoral rolls, which is declared to be available under law. The chief justice of Zimbabwe, or, if not him, one of the senior judges, produced the bizarre if not grotesque interpretation of the word "copy" when access to the electoral rolls was sought by saying that it meant pen and ink, not electronic access. As a result, there is no means reliably to identify the validity of the electoral process by which Mugabe was returned to power.
	Thirdly, I turn to individual liberty. Thomas Spicer is 18 years old. He is white, but one of the mistakes in his life was to associate with black democrats. He was recently arrested and his feet were beaten. His genitalia was connected to an electric circuit, the pain of which was so severe that he suffered severe damage as in extreme pain he mangled his tongue in the inner part of his mouth.
	The judiciary has lost its independence; democracy is undermined; and individual liberty is ignored. What worse can there be in a regime? Perhaps Mugabe will show us what there is that is worse than I have described. But the result of that state of affairs has now reached the pitch at which not only the Commonwealth and this Government, who are to be commended for all the efforts they have made, but now black Africa must speak.
	As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, has pointed out, the power lies in the hands of President Mbeki. He is probably the most important politician in Africa today. His image of a new economic programme for African development is a new hope. It puts paid to the African syndrome. It requires delicate handling. It makes it difficult for him to condemn people he wants to participate. But the time has come when he must speak and, if necessary, act. Why? Because Param Cumaraswamy, the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, reached the conclusion about Zimbabwe today that,
	"The prevailing lawlessness in the Government is not only a menace to the people of Zimbabwe but if allowed unabated could threaten peace, democracy and the rule of law in the African region".
	Black and white Africans fought for liberty. But, as the famous quotation goes, no man or woman is free until they continue to fight for the freedom of others. Black Africa must speak and must act.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for initiating this debate. I thank her also for having gone to enormous trouble in collating for us so much interesting, if highly depressing, up-to-date information on what is happening in Zimbabwe.
	I shall be extremely brief. The question that I shall pose is essentially a rhetorical one. Nevertheless, if the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, happens to have a moment to spare to comment upon it in the course of her reply, I should be extremely grateful.
	My question is this: what is the legal and moral difference between forcibly seizing the property of an ethnic minority without compensation and handing it over to selected members of the governing party in Zimbabwe in the year 2002, and doing the same thing to a different ethnic minority in Germany in the mid-1930s? I cannot see much difference, if any.
	There is of course a further parallel; namely, the great brutality meted out to dissident members of the governing party's own ethnic groups. A number of noble Lords have already referred to those brave individuals. Let us hope that the similarities end there and that there is no prospect of a repetition—albeit on a much smaller scale—of what happened in Germany subsequent to the mid-1930s. Let us also hope (it goes without saying) that there is no repetition of what happened in Matabeleland a mere 19 or 20 years ago.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for initiating and securing this debate today. I have been wondering what is meant by "the recent developments in Zimbabwe". I take the view that it means what has happened since the presidential election. It seems to me that it is the same but worse.
	Several noble Lords have referred to the decline in the role of the judiciary, the problems of land invasions, food and state-sponsored violence. There are two areas that have not yet been mentioned. Only nine days ago there were the local elections in Zimbabwe.
	I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, about a government of national unity. All that I can say is that the members of the Movement for Democratic Change would have to be incredibly saintly people indeed if they were to contemplate that, bearing in mind that during the elections that took place only nine days ago they were unable to nominate or to campaign, they were subjected to intimidation or they were barred. Rallies have been cancelled by the police; candidates have been attacked; and villages that have had the temerity to vote for the MDC in the past have been burnt down. There is also the question of how the Mugabe regime has, since the presidential election, continued to try to diminish the role of the independent media. Only recently, the independent radio station was fire-bombed.
	My colleague, my noble friend Lord Hooson, asked me to raise a matter concerning a farm that was mentioned in a letter to him. I accept that there is much more to the problems in Zimbabwe than the farms, but the correspondent writes in relation to someone who was forced to leave that they:
	"helped one of the neighbours pack up and leave their home in 48 hours. However, the army and police arrived before the time limit given, burst into their home, raided the liquor cupboard, and then, drunk, proceeded to evict them at gun point. The police were told there was a high court ruling that their eviction was not lawful, but they told these poor people that they were not interested in high court rulings. When it came for the furniture van to leave, these thugs refused to let it go until they had been given a combine harvester."
	In that brief paragraph, we have thieving, drunkenness and violence, disobeying even the rather dubious laws and graft.
	I was sat at home last week and turned on the television. The only part of the Labour Party conference that I received—I was glad that I received it—was the speech by former President Clinton. It was impressive. To summarise what he said, he extolled the need for and high calling of politics. My question to the Minister is: what are the Government doing to give us comfort and confidence that the high calling of politics is being used to try to influence events in Zimbabwe? What are we doing in the European Union, the United Nations, the South African Development Community and the Commonwealth, where certain action can be taken? Where is the New Partnership for Africa's Development now?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on securing this vital debate. Her speech reflected in chilling detail the tragedy that is Zimbabwe today. I wish to express from these Benches the horror and outrage that we all feel. There has been strong, united condemnation from the House, and I hope that the Minister associates herself and the Government with it and does so with some conviction. Her Majesty's Government have come in for a good deal of criticism—and rightly so—for their feeble policy of avoiding confrontation with the regime, which comforts and emboldens Mugabe and his thugs.
	How much more blatant, state-sponsored violence and terror must be perpetrated before the Government and the international community take any action? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the United Nations about the illegitimate regime in Zimbabwe? Is it not now time for the UN, through the Security Council, guided by its Chapter VII powers, to take decisive action? On that point, I tend to disagree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to whose views on Zimbabwe I always listen with care. The situation in Zimbabwe is now so serious that decisive action must be taken.
	What steps are the Government taking to ensure that EU targeted measures, such as travel bans, against Zimbabwe are enforced by member states? There must be a rigorous implementation of the ban, with loopholes closed, to show that Europe matches words with actions. Are there any plans to extend sanctions to the families of key officials? At every level the regime must feel the pinch of international isolation.
	Augustine Chihuri, commissioner of the Zimbabwe police, is responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including executions, the disappearance of citizens suspected of being opponents of Mugabe, and torture. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, described in graphic detail the terrible things that happened to Tom Spicer. Those crimes are punishable under international law. Chihuri is also Interpol's vice-president for Africa and makes frequent overseas jaunts. Apparently, Britain did not bother to protest when he flouted the ban to travel to Lyon in August. French authorities say that they gave the Foreign Office notice of his presence, but that Whitehall raised no objection. Why? He will now attend an Interpol conference in January about, of all things, corruption in Hong Kong. He will undoubtedly use his position to prevent discussion of one of the most serious examples of serious police corruption: the corruption over which he personally presides in Zimbabwe.
	Can the Minister confirm that her department will communicate to the Home Office, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and all chief constables an expectation that our representatives on Interpol will do all that they can to work against Chihuri's involvement in that conference?
	In the light of the human rights abuses and the lawless and ruthless victimisation of any form of opposition to the regime, work has begun on setting up a special court for Zimbabwe, along the lines of those set up in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Will Her Majesty's Government support such initiatives? The noble Lords, Lord St. John and Lord Brennan, mentioned South Africa's increasingly untenable position on Zimbabwe. I hope that it will not take the rand falling to 20 to the pound to galvanise the South African Government. Can the Minister elaborate on the "constructive engagement" that her Government are apparently having with the South African Government on Zimbabwe?
	Finally, what practical steps are the Government taking to support British passport holders fleeing the dangerous conditions in Zimbabwe to seek refuge in the United Kingdom?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for opening this debate. Her concern about the situation in Zimbabwe is well known in this House. The contributions of all speakers today demonstrate the deep concern felt in this House about the situation in Zimbabwe and the collective frustration felt by all those who consider themselves friends of that country and its people.
	The Government's policy on Zimbabwe is straightforward. We want a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe. We will support Zimbabwe's people and their democratic aspirations while aiming for the maximum isolation of the Mugabe regime. As I have said many times in this House, Britain's ability to influence events on the ground in an independent country such as Zimbabwe is limited.
	I have listened carefully to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made during our numerous debates and discussions. It is significant that proposals that have been made mirror action that the Government are already taking. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who described the Government's policy as feeble. The Members sitting on the Benches opposite have made no concrete suggestions about the way forward. Perhaps, the paucity of ideas reflects the policies that were followed by previous Conservative Governments during the dark days of UDI in what was then Rhodesia.
	We have worked to achieve a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe, but Zimbabwe has been destabilised and impoverished by bad governance in recent years. Investor confidence has collapsed, and donor assistance has dried up. The social and economic indicators are depressing: inflation is at 135 per cent; unemployment is over 70 per cent; and currency trading 10 times below its official rate. The country is poorer now than it was at independence. That is something that concerns us all.
	Zimbabwe is no longer a truly democratic country. It retains the outward forms, but the Government share the view of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the regime in Harare lacks democratic legitimacy and has lost the moral authority to govern. The international community has responded. The European Union and the United States have imposed targeted sanctions against the regime. Those sanctions have had an impact. Assets have been seized, and the travel ban impedes the regime's ability to operate. The Commonwealth has suspended Zimbabwe from its councils. The more the regime ignores world opinion, the more isolated it will become.
	We keep the sanctions under review. Since the travel ban was introduced, 59 more names have been added, including seven that were added on 13th September. However, they are European Union sanctions, and we must work with our EU partners and colleagues in reviewing them.
	Questions were asked about the travel ban. I repeat what I have said in the House several times. Only where international treaties legally oblige EU member states to let banned individuals in has that been done. Countries outside the European Union, including the United States, Switzerland and New Zealand, have imposed a travel ban. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked a specific question about Oryx with respect to assets. I can assure her that we will continue to examine ways in which we may seize the assets of those who are on the banned list. We are constantly engaged in that.
	I mentioned the isolation of the Mugabe regime. Zimbabwe is beginning to hear the same message from within the region as well. At the Southern African Development Community summit in Luanda last week, it was expected that Mugabe would be chosen as the new SADC vice-chairman. It is automatic that, after a year, the vice-chairman becomes the chairman. In the event, the heads of state chose President Mkapa of Tanzania instead.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside and with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that ordinary Zimbabweans deserve the support of the international community. Between January and 31st August this year, there were 58 politically motivated deaths in Zimbabwe, including those of 37 MDC members and one white commercial farmer. Over the same period, there were 1,053 recorded cases of torture. The UK Government, with the European Union and the United States, are the biggest providers of emergency food aid to the seven million Zimbabweans now suffering as a result of the region's food crisis. That crisis is essentially man-made. It is more the result of bad policy than of bad weather.
	The noble Baroness is right about the impact of the fast-track land reforms. It will take years to reverse the damage done to the Zimbabwean economy, now the worst- performing in Africa. It has shrunk by 23 per cent in the past two years and is likely to contract by a further 10 per cent next year. The crisis has also damaged the economies of neighbouring countries. International investment and tourism have declined. Neighbouring countries have suffered damage to local production and customs revenues from the influx of cheap Zimbabwean goods. There are mounting bad Zimbabwean debts and an increase in largely unskilled Zimbabwean migrants, when their own unemployment levels are already high.
	The United Kingdom's contribution to attempts to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe stands at £32 million. It is ironic that, if this country had taken on board the concerns of the international community about land reform, that money could have been better spent. I assure the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that our aid goes through international organisations, such as the United Nations World Food Programme, and NGOs. The level of our support will be determined on the basis of need, not political affiliation.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that Zimbabwe's future prosperity depends on the re-establishment of the rule of law and an end to political violence. There may still be independent judges in Zimbabwe, but, as my noble friend Lord Brennan said, there is no independent judiciary and no rule of law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised the issue of ethnicity and the treatment, in particular, of white farmers. State-sponsored political violence and harassment has destroyed the country's democratic structures. Over 200 people—mostly black opposition supporters—have been murdered since 2000. Thousands have been tortured, raped, harassed and beaten. The independent media have been systematically targeted. There is a serious risk that Zimbabwe's economic, social and political institutions may soon move beyond the point of no return. We must be clear: prosperity and stability will not return until the rule of law is restored. The situation has an impact on the life of all Zimbabweans. It is not about ethnicity: that is a smokescreen.
	There is also the important issue of land reform. The United Kingdom Government accept, and have always accepted, that land reform is essential to Zimbabwe's development. We have contributed to it. However, we have never accepted that the solution is to hand over large sums of money to the Zimbabwe Government on an unconditional and unsustainable basis. We did not agree that at Lancaster House in 1980, and we will not do so in future. We have said that we will support a land reform process that is transparent, fair and legal, as part of a wider strategy to reduce poverty. I assure my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside that we hope to resume support for long-term development programmes in Zimbabwe. However, that will be possible only when the needs and concerns of all stakeholders are fully addressed. The programmes must be based on the rule of law and on sensible economics and are carried out by democratic governments. None of those conditions is in place.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked several specific questions. We have been proactive in ensuring that the Inter-Parliamentary Union report on Zimbabwe has been brought to the attention of our EU partners. I assure the House that the report was on the agenda at last week's meeting of the General Affairs Council and at the previous meeting in July.
	With respect to the EU-SADC meeting, we oppose the waiving of the travel bans so that ZANU-PF members can visit the EU. Our EU partners know our views. The issue is being discussed by senior officials. SADC has offered a meeting in Maputo as an alternative to Copenhagen, and most EU partners support that.
	As far as I am aware, the armoured Mercedes Benz vehicles are not dual use vehicles. That is to say that they do not have a military use, which is why they were not on the list.
	The future of Zimbabwe must be decided by the will of the people, freely expressed. Zimbabwe's people must be allowed a free and fair election, in the presence of impartial international observers. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned the recent local elections. The rural district council elections on September 28th and 29th demonstrated the lack of democratic accountability in Zimbabwe. The election was a complete sham. Through a process of intimidation and bureaucratic obstruction, ZANU PF prevented the opposition MDC from fielding candidates in half the wards. During the campaign MDC supporters were killed. Others were intimidated. ZANU PF used food to bribe voters.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that the Government should not be deterred from speaking out. We have not been. We have made our views known to our partners in SADC, the European Union and the Commonwealth countries and we shall continue to do so. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Hughes that we need to find a solution. I recognise the important role that South Africa can play—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. We are in constant discussion with our South African partners.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised NePAD. The G8 has discussed this issue in conjunction with our NePAD partners. We are all aware that Zimbabwe casts a shadow over the NePAD process. We do not want to hold an entire continent hostage to the behaviour of one country, but we will have to continue our discussions within the context of NePAD.
	The Government believe that the only solution to the impasse in Zimbabwe is for ZANU PF to resume the Nigerian/South African brokered inter-party dialogue: to demonstrate a readiness to work for genuine national reconciliation; to stop violence and intimidation; and to co-operate fully with the UN on humanitarian aid. If these are genuinely implemented, Zimbabwe might—I emphasise that word—weather its humanitarian crisis. If not, Zimbabwe faces irreversible economic decline and suffering on a huge scale. That is something we do not want to see perpetuated, but the reality is that if this action is not taken, that will be the result.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.35 p.m.]

Animal Health Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 7.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 256 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 257 to 262 due to pre-emption.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 256:
	Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11.

Lord Plumb: We have already discussed this issue at length. We have covered the amendment, but I would like to hear the Minister's response. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 259 and 261 with which it is grouped, although we spoke to Amendment No. 259 in the group with Amendment No. 231. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wholly concur with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. We have already covered a great deal of this territory. The amendment relates to assistance, which we have covered from all angles. I too am anxious to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Whitty: I regret that even now I have little new to say. We have already dealt with the issue at some length. The amendment we agreed to earlier meets some of the anxieties behind it and is a reasonable basis for proceeding.

Lord Plumb: I thank the Minister for his brief reply. My question was also brief, but we were so involved in this issue earlier. We also discussed it at considerable length when debating the scrapie Bill. Since we still have to consider a number of amendments this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 258:
	Page 5, line 9, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (3A)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 260:
	Page 5, line 10, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 262A:
	Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
	"(3A) The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) the occupier of the premises;
	(b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
	(c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."
	Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
	"(3B) If the inspector enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 62B he must at the time of entry—
	(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises),
	(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 263:
	Page 5, line 17, leave out "(proof of which shall lie on him)"

Lord Plumb: In moving Amendment No. 263, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 299.
	This is very much a probing amendment. It is not clear whether the phrase in parenthesis in each paragraph governs the word "excuse" alone or whether it relates to "lawful authority or excuse". We take "lawful authority" as being something along the lines of a policeman directing traffic around a road accident and waving a driver to cross double white lines. On the other hand, "lawful excuse" should surely be defined in the legislation in order for anyone to go to court and to use it as a defence.
	I would welcome the Minister clarifying the relationship of the words in the paragraphs and perhaps giving examples of the circumstances under which an occupier of premises may refuse admission by "excuse". Perhaps he will also give examples of how "lawful authority" can be the justification for an occupier to take action which results in the spread of infection, even though he may know that it would do so. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The intention of the Bill generally is that the inspectors should avoid delay in the entry to premises. Therefore, any reason for preventing them from doing so must have lawful authority. The effect of the amendment would be to shift the burden of proof.
	In terms of the importance of the ability to control the disease, it is practical and reasonable to require that the farmer or the occupier should demonstrate the existence of any lawful authority or lawful excuse that he has not to comply with the inspector's requirement, rather than the inspector having to prove that he has been impeded. The effect of the change in the burden of proof would be to hold up the powers that the Bill confers.
	As to what are "lawful authority" and "lawful excuse", I believe it is the other way round to the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. "Lawful authority" is normally powers given by statute; a "lawful excuse" is one which could be legally proven in court as a reason for not complying with an order. If we go back to "reasonableness", "mitigating circumstances" and so on, that is what "excuse" means. But "authority" would be something that is statutorily based and would be a right accruing to the owner of the property in those circumstances.

Lord Plumb: I thank the Minister for that response. My note states that "lawful excuse" should surely be defined in the legislation in order for anyone to go to court and use it as a defence. There is not much difference between us in regard to the definitions of "excuse" and "authority". I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. It is a matter of general concern as we discuss the whole question of legislation. I give notice that we shall raise this issue again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: In calling Amendment No. 264, I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 265 and 267.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 264:
	Page 5, leave out lines 22 to 24.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Amendment No. 264 addresses the issue of where, under the Bill as it stands, a person commits an offence if he is required to give assistance under Section 62C(3) and he fails to give it. The amendment seeks to delete that part of the Bill.
	Under Section 62C(3), which deals with supplementary slaughter,
	"the inspector may require any person on the premises to give him such assistance as he reasonably needs for the purpose mentioned in section 62A".
	As the Bill stands, a person will commit an offence if, when required to give assistance under Section 62C(3), he fails to give it. The amendment, in effect, seeks to delete such an offence.
	The Minister has taken a draconian power in this respect. It would be better if he accepted our amendment to ensure that a greater degree of fair play occurs when any person is asked to give assistance in these circumstances. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: Our names are attached to this amendment alongside those of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We very much support the amendment. We seem to be coming full circle, as the noble Lord indicated. The amendment is very important. If the Minister is not able to give a satisfactory answer today, I hope that he will take the matter away and give some thought to the strength of feeling there is in regard to this amendment.

The Countess of Mar: Unlike the amendments related to vaccination, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. It is tantamount to torture to expect a man or a woman who has raised cattle, sheep or pigs, or even goats—we have not mentioned goats; as a goat-keeper I am very concerned about goats—over a number of years to be there while their animals are being slaughtered. It is awful. I ask the Minister to withdraw this particular part of the Bill. I should be grateful if he would think carefully about that.

Lord Whitty: It would be impracticable to remove this power. In nearly all cases where slaughter is involved there will need to be a rounding up of animals. It is difficult to envisage how personnel coming onto a farm would be able to do so without the assistance of the farmer or someone who works on the farm. While recognising the very difficult circumstances in which people found themselves, in the vast majority of cases the farmers or those working on farms co-operated and provided that vital assistance. It was only in a minority of cases that that did not take place. Were the inspector to have no power to enforce that assistance—which is all that is provided for in the clause—we could find ourselves in a situation whereby far more premises were not dealt with effectively.
	The demands on the farmer must, of course, be reasonable. Officials will have to act within reason. There are limits to their requests regarding what is necessary to carry out their task. I know there have been reports that there have been requests to make cups of tea and all kinds of extraneous activities, but that is not the case. The requests would have to be reasonable and in support of the task to be carried out. The offence created in the clauses is intended as a deterrent in order that resistant and uncooperative owners should recognise that, at the end of the day, the inspectors do have the power. We would require them to operate it reasonably and expect them to operate it tactfully. One is aware that during the last outbreak there were situations where neither of those requirements operated, but, legally speaking, we are making sure that inspectors do act reasonably and confine requests to what is needed to carry out their duties. To remove the ability to enforce that and thereby deter unreasonable resistance would again be to undermine the disease control measures.

The Countess of Mar: Speaking personally, I should be much happier making cups of tea for the inspectors than having to round up my animals and watch them being slaughtered. I speak from personal experience. You build a bond with your animals. That applies particularly to people with small herds. That is where the Minister's department found difficulties during the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Much of the conflict occurred with owners of small herds or flocks. That is where particular tact is needed. With a small herd, for heaven's sake, it is quite easy for someone else to come in and round up the animals and leave the owner to make cups of tea for the officials. That would be much better.

Baroness Byford: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She touched on the fact that she is a keeper of goats and would find it very difficult were she asked to help with their slaughter. She referred to small herds. There is also the question of those who have rare breeds.
	Rare breeds are very specific. In our earlier discussions the Government recognised their importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is presently not in her place, spoke about those who keep stock for breeding purposes. It is traumatic enough to lose your own animals, but there is a slight difference between an animal for commercial purposes which you have for only a short amount of time and one with which you work in establishing a high-quality breeding herd. It is important for the Government to bear that point in mind.
	On this point, what does the Minister think will be covered by subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 66A that will not be covered in subsection (1)?

Lord Whitty: The proposed new subsection (1) deals with impeding entry to the premises. Subsection (2) deals with the issue that we are discussing; namely, rendering assistance.

Baroness Byford: My reading of the subsection may not be right. As I understand it, in subsection (1):
	"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority",
	he does any of the three things listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Secondly, he commits an offence if,
	"he is required to give assistance under section 62C(3), and ... he fails to give it".
	I should have thought that his actions would already have fallen within the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1). The noble Lord shakes his head.

Lord Whitty: He may accede to admission, but then refuse to give assistance. The first provision deals with an attempt to prevent an inspector entering the premises in the first instance; the second provision deals with a refusal of reasonable assistance to an inspector who has entered the premises.

The Countess of Mar: In response to the noble Baroness, I should be prepared to let someone into my premises, but I should not be prepared personally to take part in rounding the animals up and seeing them shot.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Examining the responses to this series of amendments, one sees that the situation is extremely difficult. For example, Amendment No. 264 is three-dimensional. The amendment seeks to leave out lines 22 to 24. Those lines contain a reference to new Section 62C(3), which contains a reference to new Section 62A. When you get to new Section 62A, you see that,
	"An inspector may at any time enter any premises for the purpose of ... ascertaining whether a power conferred by or under this Act to cause an animal to be slaughtered should be exercised, or ... doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power".
	The noble Countess and the noble Baroness rightly mentioned specific circumstances where this is effectively a humanitarian issue—it relates to whether you can stomach rounding up your animals to be slaughtered. We all know of cases where members of the family—young children, for example—have pet lambs which have to be rounded up and slaughtered. That is a terrible thing. Children understandably become devoted to an animal that they have reared. Indeed, the Young Farmers Movement began by rearing calves. I recollect that it started in 1938 to 1940 with "calf clubs", with youngsters rearing young animals.
	There are very sensitive issues under discussion here. To allow this provision to remain in the Bill is abhorrent—I use the word advisedly. Unless you have seen the circumstances and have had to do this, it is difficult to understand what you are asking people to do. It is a humanitarian issue and I ask the Minister to consider that point. Clearly we cannot press the amendment to a vote now, but I hope that when the Bill returns for its Report stage the feelings that have been expressed will have been taken into account. I hope that in some way these powers can be less malign than they are at present. I have no alternative in the circumstances but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 265 to 267 not moved.]
	Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Tests and samples: power of entry]:
	[Amendments Nos. 269 to 271 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 272 to 275:
	Page 5, line 36, leave out "during that period"
	Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
	"(c) whether any causative agent of disease is present on the premises."
	Page 5, line 39, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
	"(3A) Causative agent includes any virus, bacterium and any other organism or infectious substance which may cause or transmit disease."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 276 to 279 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 279A:
	Page 6, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—
	"(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—
	(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
	(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
	(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.
	(4) The third condition is that—
	(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 280 to 283 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 283A:
	Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
	"(6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency.
	(7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—
	(a) a copy of the warrant;
	(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the inspector and any other person entering the premises with him."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 285:
	Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
	"(b) such equipment as he thinks necessary."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 286:
	Page 6, line 32, leave out "on the premises" and insert "biologically susceptible to the disease"

Baroness Byford: Yesterday, we debated Amendment No. 211, a very similar amendment in which we asked the Government to consider the position of those animals that were not susceptible to infection with foot and mouth disease. We are anxious that nobody should decide to use slaughter backed up by draconian powers of the Bill to eliminate animals or birds that may or may not have been in contact with infected animals. Scientific theories seem to multiply faster than rabbits, and the speed at which they are taken up and often dropped is both bewildering and frightening. The thought of what might happen, particularly if some of the more exotic diseases made it over here, should ensure that everyone in this Chamber supports the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider the matter and assure me that it applies only to animals that are susceptible to the disease. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: Once again, we have this business of how the Bill appears. This is another clause that has earned the legislation the name the Animal Death Bill as opposed to the Animal Health Bill. I ask the Committee to look seriously at the noble Baroness's amendments. It is the appearance that matters.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I concur with the noble Countess. This is a matter of great concern, and various points have been made during the debate. However, biological susceptibility to disease is a material fact that cannot be ignored.

Lord Whitty: The amendment would prevent the taking of samples from animals that were not susceptible to the disease. As matters stand, the Animal Health Act defines animals in terms of cattle, sheep, goats, swine, other ruminants, and, for a reason that escapes me, elephants. The same applies to this Bill. The Bill does not propose to extend that list, and any extension would be by order. Nothing in the clause extends that list. Nevertheless, it provides a framework for disease control, and non-susceptible animals could be found to carry either foot and mouth disease or another disease to which the legislation is extended. That does not appear to be the case as regards foot and mouth disease at the moment, but it is possible. We do not therefore wish to exclude the ability to test those animals—we are talking about testing rather than slaughter. I therefore think that the provision should remain.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. I have to say that I am no happier than I was with his response to Amendment No. 111 yesterday, about which I am sure he is not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 289 and 290:
	Page 6, line 34, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (4A)"
	Page 6, line 35, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 292:
	Page 6, line 36, at end insert—
	"(4A) The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) the occupier of the premises;
	(b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
	(c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 292A:
	Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) If the inspector enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 62E he must at the time of entry—
	(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises),
	(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 293 to 295 not moved.]
	Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 296:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
	"CODE OF CONDUCT
	The Minister shall lay before Parliament, within six months of this Act coming into force, an order setting out a code of conduct for those entering premises for the purpose of this Act."

Baroness Byford: With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 296, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jopling, who, regrettably, cannot be with us. I thought that it was particularly relevant to move the amendment at this stage so that the Government could consider it more fully before we meet back again on Report.
	My noble friend, in his amendment, asks the Government to insert a new clause requesting that the Minister lay before Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force an order setting out a code of conduct for those entering premises for the purpose of this Act.
	We have had several debates about entry. We have reflected on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. The noble Lord will appreciate that in some circumstances people felt coerced—perhaps arms were twisted and action may not have been taken in the most sympathetic fashion. Obviously, we understand that it was an extremely difficult time for those who were trying to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak.
	The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that in future we have a code of conduct. I ask the Minister to accept the contents of the new clause.

Lord Whitty: I have already indicated my intention to table an amendment on Report to introduce a requirement to consult on and publish a disease-control protocol, which will cover the issues referred to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in his amendment. The protocol will indicate the relevant factors that must be taken into account after taking specific decisions at farm level and will cover many of the matters we discussed. We have just published a draft of that protocol.
	In addition, I intend to table an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for the use of powers more broadly, which will probably deal with the other part of what the noble Baroness was saying.
	Rather than accept this amendment, I should prefer to deal with the issue when I table an amendment on Report.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. We are very appreciative that the Government have listened to some of the arguments that were put forward in writing before we were able to move the amendment formally in this Chamber. The Government have given an important undertaking. The Minister mentioned that the Government have produced a draft protocol. Maybe it has not come my way, or perhaps I have seen it and mislaid it.

Lord Whitty: It has only just been published.

Baroness Byford: Then, no doubt, I will see it. The only issue the noble Lord did not address was the request of my noble friend Lord Jopling that the code of conduct should be laid within six months of the Act coming into force. Can the Minister guarantee that?

Lord Whitty: I think I can.

Baroness Byford: In that case, I know that my noble friend will thank the Minister and will be glad to hear his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 [Inspection of vehicles]:
	[Amendment No. 297 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 298:
	Page 7, line 15, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Deliberate infection of animals]:
	[Amendment No. 299 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 300:
	Page 8, line 3, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 301:
	Page 8, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
	"( ) No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

Baroness Byford: We have already tabled an amendment to add rabies to the list. In light of the report of a bat with low contagion infection at an animal sanctuary, this may be timely. By the nature of this legislation, anything else that may be added to the list will be very serious. It may well have implications for human health. As with foot and mouth, the way in which it is handled may be crucial to its speedy eradication.
	It is to be hoped that no government would leave establishing a method of dealing with such a disease until it had been identified in the United Kingdom. It will rather be a case of watching a new bug emerge and deciding that it could present a threat at some time in the future. At that moment, the government in power should open the subject for debate and proceed as a result of an informed consensus by laying it before Parliament for debate. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: In my previous incarnation as Chief Whip I worked extremely hard on departments to make them realise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in this House is very powerful and that its recommendations should always be followed if possible—and if not, that departments should have extremely good reasons for not following them. The obverse is that when the Committee has no objection to the powers taken in a Bill, be they affirmative or negative, it would be as well for this House to listen to the advice of that committee. I understand that the Delegated Powers Committee has no objection to the procedure that the Government have taken in the Bill.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Has the Delegated Powers Committee looked at the Bill recently, since all the new amendments were tabled? Circumstances have moved on. That might have a bearing. Is the noble Lord referring to the committee's original review of the Bill when it was first presented back in November?

Lord Carter: The committee will have considered the provision in the Bill that we now have. It would also have to comment on any order-making powers contained in amendments. This provision was in the Bill already, so I am pretty sure that the report will be on the Bill as presented to that committee, which is the Bill in front of us.

Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Lord. I need to look at the issue again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: In calling Amendment No. 302, I inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 303 because of pre-emption.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 302:
	Page 8, leave out line 11.

Lord Plumb: The next two or three amendments are related. Under new Section 28A, inserted by Clause 11,
	"A person commits an offence if . . . he knowingly does anything which causes . . . an animal to be infected with a disease".
	That is the gist of my concern on this amendment. It is a delicate situation. This sort of thing is rare, but it can happen. The Bill does not say, "if he knowingly causes infection", but if he knowingly does something that in turn results in infection—and not just any infection, but one from the list in Schedule 2A.
	I believe it would be possible to obtain a conviction under this heading were a farmer to hear on local radio that foot and mouth disease was suspected three miles away and then move his flock to new pastures almost immediately. I am not suggesting that he would do that; I am just putting forward a hypothetical case.
	The farmer may have moved his flock so that it would not be confined to tired grass by a movement restriction, and his peers or the local magistrate may feel that that action went against the spirit of the law. I do not believe that it would be fair or reasonable to punish that man and his family by removing animals about which there is no concern, such as cats, dogs, horses and ponies. I do not think that the law should be so phrased as to allow that to happen. Should a court feel that his crime was so serious that he cannot be trusted to look after any animals, such a ban can still be imposed under the phrase,
	"any animals of a specified kind".
	That is our concern about paragraph (b) of new Section 28B(1).
	I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 303 to 309. Unenforceable legislation seems to be increasingly common, but banning a farmer from keeping "any animals" has to be one of the best examples yet. The ban will apply to the farmer who has offended against the law. However, farmers live with friends or family, and many of them have children at home. One often expects to see animals even on arable farms. Many farms, particularly those with livestock, have places for keeping animals. However, if a farmer is banned from keeping any animals, what will happen to those that he already has? What will happen to animals on the farm which are treated more as pets than products? How will anyone prove that a pony ridden by the youngest child but purchased by the farmer belongs to him—if it ever did—in any meaningful sense?
	Will those charged with enforcing the ban simply remove all the animals bought by the offender? What about the offspring of animals bought by the offender? Will calves born to a pedigree cow be regarded as the farmer's property? What about the pups or full-grown dogs born to a bitch paid for by the farmer? What if he bought his wife a Siamese cat for their wedding anniversary? He paid for it, but who can prove who owns it in these circumstances?
	Paragraph (a) of new Section 28B(1) would be difficult to enforce on a single person living on the 14th floor of a high-rise block. How can we contemplate enforcing it on a farm? It seems ludicrous. Our Amendment No. 303 is an attempt to reintroduce a little common sense.
	Amendment No. 304 proposes amending line 33 on page 8, replacing "one year" with "three months". The grounds for finding someone guilty of knowingly doing something that led, or could have led, to a spread of infection range from a misdemeanour to full-blown fraud. Will the Minister explain where the dividing line between the letter and the spirit of the law will be placed? Would a farmer moving newly purchased pigs from the market in Hereford to his farm in Yorkshire be breaking the law if he ignored a radio announcement that foot and mouth disease had been found in Staffordshire, for example, and a movement ban was expected at any moment?
	Such an action may be deemed to be covered by the law, but it is very different from, for example, seeking out a source of infection, using it to infect a herd or flock and claiming compensation. However, the punishment for both actions is exactly the same. A year's ban for a farmer would be very difficult. It is rather worse than losing one's licence for 18 months for drunk driving in that, in the latter case, one could employ someone else to drive so that one can work. By reducing the interval before the first application for removal or variation of the order can be made, the serious offender can still be subject to a heavy penalty and the lesser offence can be treated appropriately.
	Amendment No. 304 would make a similar amendment to line 36, replacing "one year" with "six months". Subsection (7) of new Section 28B also sets an extremely harsh punishment for a misdemeanour. I have already pointed out the ambiguity of the phrase "lawful authority or excuse". It is unthinkable that someone whose excuse is not believed by the court should be fined, banned from keeping certain animals and then stopped by statute from applying for the ban to be lifted for a further year.
	Amendment No. 307 proposes leaving out lines 40 and 42 on page 8. I do not know whether there is a special word for those who abuse and maltreat animals; all I know is that such people are around. I am sure that no one would want to allow them to have anything to do with the control or care of animals. A complete ban, including being kicked off the management board of the local cats' home, would be thoroughly justified upon conviction in some of the cases brought, for example, by the RSPCA. I have recently had much discussion with that organisation on this very subject.
	The range of offences covered by this legislation is wide and the penalty that we are discussing is considered to be draconian. It is unnecessary and it may do the body concerned a great deal of harm. One has to consider the case of the fundraising director of a charity concerned with the care of small animals who lives in a city. He is relatively successful at his job. He goes out to try to persuade some people to donate some money to the charity. He drives over an infection barrier, up a track and into a farmyard. There is no one about so he gets out of the car and walks across to a barn but there is no one there either. Therefore, he gets back into his car and drives away. I do not need to spell that out as it is the kind of situation that can arise. However, under the terms of the Bill, if foot and mouth disease is found on the farm and estate in question, it could be traced to that person's movements. He could be prosecuted and found guilty of the deliberate infection of livestock. He could be banned from keeping any animals of his own and expelled from the board of the charity on which he serves.
	Members of the Committee may consider that that example is rather far-fetched. However, one has to consider those kinds of examples to prove the point that if milk tanker drivers and possibly DEFRA officials can enter a farm in such a way, why should not a well-intentioned fellow from a city act in the same way? As regards any Bill, our job is to try to ensure that such scenarios are never punished by the full weight of the law. There has to be a balanced approach to punishment. I hope to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, assure us that such a naive offence would not incur anything like the maximum penalty. I believe that I have covered the matter. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: This is one group of amendments with which I have little sympathy. Subsection (1) of new Section 28A states:
	"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse . . . he knowingly does anything".
	"Knowingly" is the operational word. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the person knowingly did something. In my opinion anyone who knowingly infects animals commits an unforgivable sin. Therefore, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the amendments.

Lord Carter: I shall say a few words along the same lines. A thread has run right through our discussions on the Bill in Committee. For understandable reasons Members of this House have always been extremely concerned about issues of freedom and civil liberty. I have considered all those matters from the point of view of the farmer who might be caught by the rules. If the rules err a little on the side of severity—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, with his previous incarnation as president of the NFU will understand what I am saying—we should remember the tens of thousands of farmers not on the farm in question whose livelihoods could be affected if the disease spreads. We can strain too hard at extreme examples where a farmer might be inadvertently caught by the rules. Understandably we are concerned about such cases but we should never forget that the rules are intended to safeguard the livelihoods of tens of thousands of farmers rather than that of an individual farmer who may be inadvertently caught by the terms of the Bill.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have some sympathy with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has put forward. However, I also understand the points which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just made. I also noted the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, with regard to the word "knowingly". I suspect that some of the examples mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, indicate that sometimes infection is spread not knowingly. If a prosecution is brought in those circumstances, the definition of the word "knowingly" needs to be examined very carefully indeed to ascertain whether the action was committed knowingly. I thank the noble Countess for bringing that point forward; it is extremely important.

Lord Whitty: I, too, am glad to concur with the noble Countess on this point. The word "knowingly" does not cover "inadvertent". It means knowingly doing something which could infect animals and is pretty close to deliberate infection. That is a very serious misdemeanour and, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, potentially it endangers the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It is a very serious offence.
	The other concerns as regards Amendment No. 302 are also not valid. There is the reference to "any animals", for example, which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was extending to include dogs and cats. The provision relates to animals as defined in the 1981 Act, which are cattle, sheep, goats, swine and other ruminants. It probably includes elephants. Therefore, it does not include dogs, cats and goldfish. It could include farm animals which are kept as pets, but that is a different issue which is dealt with by some of the other amendments with the exception of household pets. Since normal household pets are largely excluded, we are really talking about sheep and calves which are kept as pets. They are susceptible to the disease and they are largely handled by people who also handle other animals. I believe that the exclusion of pets could be a dangerous loophole in the disease control mechanisms. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the restrictions which are required by a number of the amendments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to the sentence. Clause 11 refers in the first instance to a sentence not exceeding six months, which is the maximum, and disqualification as regards very serious offences which spread the disease. I believe that disqualification is appropriate and it is also appropriate not to review it within one year. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he was referring to driving licences. Normally, they are suspended for one year and the suspension is not reviewed in that period. In some ways it is an even more disastrous offence to spread disease. Disqualification for one year is appropriate and I do not see any reason to reduce it.
	I believe that the noble Lord went as far as Amendment No. 308. My remarks relate to those amendments.

Lord Plumb: I thank the Minister for that response. In particular, I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her remarks. If she or anyone thought for one second that I was defending the indefensible—namely, people who may misbehave by disobeying the law and introduce this horrible disease into their own premises—perhaps I may disabuse them because there is nothing further from my mind.
	The reason for tabling these amendments is to try to determine the dividing line between the odd characters who may commit these crimes and the reality for those who unknowingly get into this situation. That is the intention of the amendments rather than trying to protect those who deserve to be brought before the courts. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his comments in that direction which relate very much to that issue. In the light of the comments which have been made and the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 303 to 309 not moved.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 310:
	Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) The Minister shall make orders for the eradication and prevention of the above diseases—
	(a) subject to a named institution; and
	(b) subject to no order being made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have a specific reason for moving this amendment. It refers to Schedule 2A, which contains a long list of specified diseases ranging from foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease through to diseases like Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza.
	The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Minister concerned should,
	"make orders for the eradication and prevention of the . . . diseases",
	set out in the schedule,
	"(a) subject to a named institution; and
	(b) subject to no order being made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament".
	A similar amendment was discussed last night when mention was made of a named institution. I have a few important points to make in this regard.
	Members of the Committee may remember that we had quite a long and rather esoteric debate last night regarding foot and mouth disease, different strains of the disease, how it might be spread, and the types of buildings involved. I am extremely concerned about the position of a centre of great excellence in this respect in Pirbright; indeed, I believe it still to be an excellent outfit. However, it has been underfunded over many years and has declined in its status as a world reference centre for the study of diseases.
	Many unanswered questions remain, for example, about the strains of foot and mouth disease and about the way that they behave. In my view, insufficient research has been carried out; and, indeed, during the 1980s, we had a culture of near-market research. Therefore, if we are talking about eradication and prevention of the disease, it is important for sufficient funding to be made available to enable us to establish another centre of excellence, like Pirbright, which could deal on a world-wide basis with these diseases to ensure that they do not enter this country. Indeed, if some of those diseases listed in Schedule 2A were to arise in this country, it would be the end for our livestock industry in many cases.
	We know that some of the strains of foot and mouth exist in certain countries. It would be the function of that named institution, which already carries out such work, to study those strains. If we know that the current strain within certain regions of the world is likely to enter the United Kingdom, its characteristics would be known. Indeed, measures could be taken to ensure that, if it came into this country, the research institution could have in place specified ways to tackle such diseases. That would assist the Government in ensuring that the right measures are put in place. Before the particular strain of foot and mouth disease arose in this country, we did not know that it affected sheep more than any other livestock. Many questions were raised last night as to why pigs were not infected. Some noble Lords pontificated as to why that was the case.
	In countries where these strains are rampant there is much knowledge that could be utilised to ensure that, should such strains arrive in this country, we would be ready to deal with them. I am really making a plea for such a named institution, especially the one in Pirbright, to be given the necessary assistance and the additional staffing to enable it to carry out a very important function.
	The overall cost of the recent foot and mouth outbreak was, I believe, in the order of just over £5 billion. It would be a good investment to have a real centre of excellence that could anticipate what may happen in this country. That would save everyone—farmers and taxpayers—not only much heartache but also much money, which could be far better used. This is a question of a relatively small investment for a named institution of excellence, which would assist us greatly in relation to animal health in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Byford: I suspect—

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I do apologise to the Committee. Such was my keenness to support the noble Lord's amendment!
	I suspect that the Minister may not agree to the noble Lord's amendment but I hope that he shares our concern that enough money should be given to research and development and that there should be places of excellence. Members of the Committee will remember that yesterday I discussed the position regarding the facility at Edinburgh University, which has been under threat. We had a meeting about that in the House earlier this summer.
	I should have thought that the Government would want to take on board anything that could help to prevent infectious diseases and produce better ways in which to control them or help us to come up with better vaccinations.
	Another concern—this involves the future, not simply today's problems—is that if global warming is going to happen, more exotic diseases may come into this country. That reinforces the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. If that happens, I suspect that it would mean that we should see on these shores diseases that had not previously been here. I make this short contribution to underline the sensible approach of the noble Lord, although I suspect that unfortunately the Minister may not respond as favourably as I have done. I wish the noble Lord well.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, wish to support the spirit of the amendment although, like the noble Baroness, I fear that the wording will not be acceptable. There has been a terrible cutback in veterinary training. The Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine has been threatened with closure. That would be a disastrous loss to the United Kingdom.
	I shall never forget, during the aftermath of the Gulf War, that when I asked questions about dead animals in the desert, that school came to my rescue by showing that some of the animals had been licking batteries but not those that were in the desert and that those dead animals were not infected with anything.
	A senior member of Pirbright, Professor Kitching, has gone to Canada because the facilities at Pirbright no longer provided him with the outlet that he needed. He was an expert on foot and mouth disease. That is another disaster and a great loss to the British veterinary services. If the Minister did another cost-benefit analysis, it would show the huge costs not only in monetary terms but also in souls that the foot and mouth outbreak has caused. It would pay Her Majesty's Government to resurrect our wonderful veterinary history.

Lord Whitty: I have some sympathy with the comments of the noble Countess, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Baroness. They said that we need centres of excellence for veterinary medicines, research, diagnostics and testing facilities. That certainly is the case. I am not entirely sure how the amendment would achieve that. The need for centres of excellence and research is spelt out clearly in the Royal Society report, which the Government will have to consider.
	Some of the centres of excellence which deal with particular diseases—not only those discussed here but others as well—will probably have to be tackled on a European level rather than by setting up institutes for each one in this country. The unique designation of one disease to one institute may not be the appropriate pattern.
	However, the amendment is linked to the list of diseases which relate primarily to deliberate infection. It is not necessarily the appropriate list of diseases for priority research work. I presume that the noble Lord is not suggesting that we devolve other functions from government as a whole to those institutions but simply the research and testing facilities. Therefore, while I have sympathy with what has been said, I do not believe that the amendment will achieve that. In our response to the Royal Society report, we shall clearly have to indicate what we are doing in relation to veterinary research.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister very much for his reply. Obviously the amendment provided an opportunity to make the point about the importance of fundamental research in our quest for the eradication and prevention of diseases.
	I simply say to the Minister that, certainly in the past, Pirbright has held a pre-eminent position in tackling animal diseases on a world-wide basis. I believe that there is also a recognition of its reputation in Europe. I do not believe that recent governments have contributed to the decline at Pirbright. However, it still does excellent work, as it did during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease when testing was carried out under very great strain. I know that the staff work their hearts out there. However, had they had more resources, they could perhaps have anticipated matters a little more for the Government and perhaps could have tackled even more effectively the crisis of the recent outbreak.
	I accept what the Minister says, but I am sure that he will not forget, particularly in relation to the Royal Society report, the importance of our small debate on this issue. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 311:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"OFFICIALS: BIOSECURITY
	In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 16—
	"16A OFFICIALS: BIOSECURITY
	(1) The Minister, or any persons acting on his behalf, shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that he does nothing likely to cause an animal to be infected with a disease specified in Schedule 2A.
	(2) Any person who fails to take such reasonable precautions is guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.""

Baroness Byford: This amendment concerns the officials, the system and the whole question of biosecurity. The Minister will know that, as the foot and mouth crisis ranged at its worst in 2001, we understood and appreciated the tremendous amount of work carried out by members of his department and by colleagues locally who had to face the problem at the sharp end.
	Nevertheless, the Bill is aimed only at pointing the finger at the farmers. Nowhere in the Bill—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is there any check or balance on officials or on their responsibilities for biosecurity measures. The amendment seeks to attempt to raise the issue at this point in the Bill.
	As I have already pointed out, the Bill assumes that farmers, occupiers, landowners and those who deal with animals are necessarily in the wrong and that they deserve severe punishment. However, in practice during the last foot and mouth outbreak, in some areas government officials—never mind many others who entered farms—stood charged of disobeying rules and, on some occasions, of lacking some of the niceties of social behaviour. As Members of the Committee will know, I referred earlier to cases where one or two farmers felt coerced and a little badgered into allowing access to be given or into allowing their animals to be culled.
	I am glad that neither the Royal Society nor the Anderson reports blamed people directly for that behaviour or otherwise proved any or all of the allegations made at the time. But I believe the Minister will recognise that a strong feeling existed among farmers, even though, as the noble Lord may say, that may be unjustified. However, in some cases I believe that it was justified. I am quite convinced that there were faults and not just among the farming fraternity.
	As the Bill stands there is no means of enforcing behaviour standards on government officials at either national or local levels. Indeed, there is no suggestion that there should be set behaviour standards. Doubtless that is because the Government do not consider that their staff need to be monitored. I hope that is not so. I am delighted to see the noble Lord shake his head. It is strange that in this important Bill, which will protect the health and welfare of animals, there is no guidance or direction to officials and those dealing with an outbreak. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on raising this important issue. It is right that it should be discussed at Committee stage. I also congratulate her on the rational and restrained manner in which she spoke to the amendment. In many parts of the countryside there is still a great deal of anger at the way in which officials of MAFF and then DEFRA and people working on their behalf were seen to behave during the foot and mouth outbreak. I shall not go through that again as it has been well rehearsed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. However, the bitterness and the anger—the legacy of the outbreak—remain. That is allied to what is widely seen as a lack of balance in the Bill which the Government still need to address.
	Many people and farmers in the countryside do not object at all to the Government seeking ways of tackling any future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other similar disease in a more effective way than before. No one with any brains could dispute that the outbreak should be tackled in a better way than before, particularly in the early stages and in the extremely difficult circumstances at the height of the outbreak in places like Cumbria, where foot and mouth appeared to rage rampant and no one appeared to understand how to tackle it.
	One reason why no one understood how to tackle the outbreak—different approaches were tried as time went on—is that no one knew how it was being spread. Even now that remains the case. There is a table in the Anderson report setting out how the virus was spread and 79 per cent of cases are still put down to unspecified local contacts. Rather optimistically in some cases it says that more than one agent was suspected. Another 9 per cent of cases are still under investigation. So for 88 per cent of cases people still do not know how the infection was spread. That is extraordinary and as a result everyone still has their own theories. However, it is quite clear that in the early stages of the disease, but also in later stages when it took hold in the Craven district in the Pennines and at one stage was advancing down the Ribble valley at a horrifying rate and came to within five miles of where I live, people did not know how it was being spread.
	Not all the stories that one heard from farms about officials from the department and people working for them galumphing around the countryside in a way that did not accord with any sensible description of biosecurity can be wrong. Some of those stories of people going from one farm to the next and then on to further farms have to be believed. It is quite clear that a great many of those unspecified local contacts—79 per cent or perhaps more of the total—must have been a result of people and vehicles going from one farm to another.
	It is quite likely that at least some of those were people working for the Government. Some of the things that I witnessed and stories from quite reliable witnesses about the way in which people went about their work—whether it was testing, killing or removing the carcasses—indicate that biosecurity is not the top word that one would use to describe what happened in some cases. So there is anger and belief that the Government are now blaming the farmers when at least some of the problems resulted from the way in which their own agents undertook the work.
	Therefore, I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this issue. I am not sure how it ought to be dealt with. I am not sure that this amendment is the right way to deal with it, but certainly Clause 2 seems to refer to any person. We have talked recently in this Committee about the need to penalise people who are reckless in terms of activity that can spread the disease. However, the amendment extends it too far to accidental spread, whether from the men from the Ministry or other people going about their business or doing whatever, so I am not sure that this amendment is the right way. But it highlights the problem the Government still have with many people. There is a fundamental belief that they are not being balanced; that farmers, some of whom no doubt were to blame for what happened, generally were not to blame but are being blamed. It is believed that the Government are not prepared to apply the same standards to their own operations and staff that they apply to everyone else.
	I hope that in dealing with future outbreaks that will not be the case. When we see the promised contingency plans and the plans for dealing with further outbreaks, I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to question the Government on this issue. They will tell us that it will not be the same next time, or that best practice from this latest outbreak—there was some very good practice in some places—will be applied everywhere. That is fine. But one still must convince the people out there on the farms that that is the case.

The Countess of Mar: I too have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness. I wonder whether the matter is not covered in Clause 11, where it states that,
	"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse ... he knowingly does anything".
	If people are trained in biosecurity by the department, are told they must apply it, then go on to a farm with foot and mouth disease and do not take precautions when they go on to the next farm, I should have thought that they are knowingly spreading the disease. Therefore, I wonder whether they are not caught in that clause.

Lord Whitty: I do not quite know how to respond to this matter. On the one hand, it is clearly part of the folklore of this disease that staff of MAFF/DEFRA and its contractors were responsible for some spreading of the disease. There is actually no proven case where that happened. The idea that a large proportion of 79 per cent of local spread was down to officials or contractors is nonsense.

Lord Greaves: I am sorry. I was not saying that a large proportion of it was. I am saying that there is enough anecdotal evidence and evidence from people I trust to indicate that perhaps a small part of it was. That is all I am saying.

Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Lord for clarifying that matter. It is important to recognise that mistakes were made, some corners were undoubtedly cut and some inappropriate people were deployed who probably would not have been had we had a full contingency plan in operation of the kind that we now have. It is also important to recognise that all the staff and contractors of MAFF/DEFRA were under the code of conduct of biosecurity precautions. No doubt there were lapses, but it is not the case that the Government took no responsibility for their staff or other people employed by the organisation.
	Nor is it the case that the Bill points the finger to say that it was entirely the farmers' fault. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pointed out, where an offence is created under the Act, it affects not a farmer but a person. That may be a person employed directly or indirectly by the department. As she also says, "knowingly" is an important factor, because one might suppose that officials of the department and its agencies would be more knowing than another private person. They could be held under that offence, just as all other animal health offences are not primarily directed at the farmer alone. They may relate to people moving on and off farms, to drivers, dealers and traders, to the markets and so forth. So it is wrong to characterise the Bill or the drafting of animal health legislation generally as blaming farmers.
	Government officials and those who work for them are subject to a tight code of conduct and the criminal law, in the same way as anyone else. So singling them out as would the amendment would balance the scales in the opposite direction in an unhelpful way. On behalf of the departmental staff and others employed by us, I accept our responsibility, as much as that of farmers and others, to observe biosecurity provisions and to act within the law as laid down in the Bill and elsewhere. But we do not need a separate provision in the Bill to that effect.

Baroness Byford: I thank all Members of the Committee, including the Minister, for the short debate that we have had on my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right: there is still great bitterness; the Minister would acknowledge that all is not fully healed from last year.
	I had not read into the Bill what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, reads: that it will apply equally to anyone. That was perhaps my oversight, but on the whole the Bill gives the Government—and therefore people within the department—powers to bring someone up for an offence. It had not struck me that they might be bringing one of their own personnel up for an offence, although I know that certain people who worked for the department have been found guilty of committing crime during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. But that is another matter.
	I should like to reconsider the matter. I still think that it would be helpful to have some sort of code of conduct, as it were. The wording of my amendment may not be quite right. Perhaps it should be headed "Code of conduct" rather than "Officials: biosecurity"; perhaps that would be less abrasive. However, it was intended to be helpful by suggesting that in future we could tighten up and improve performance by both those engaged in farming and those who come to their aid in times of need.
	The other distinction that I would make is that, on the whole, once an outbreak occurred, farmers did not move onto other people's farms, whereas officials had to. That is their job; they had to go there. Although the Minister did not agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—I did not take it that the noble Lord was suggesting that the 70 per cent spread was caused by officials—by the nature of the work with which those officials are involved, they must go into such places; they have no option. That was my reasoning.

The Countess of Mar: Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to know that in my locality, where veterinary surgeons were working for the ministry, if they entered an infected farm they were grounded for seven days. They did not go anywhere else.

Baroness Byford: I indeed understand what the noble Countess says and appreciate that there were clean vets and dirty vets and that they were not allowed to mix. One of the crucial things to come out of our short debate and out of some of our earlier discussions is the need to reach a conclusion on how the spread occurred in so many cases about which there is still uncertainty. I suppose that science will not help us with that. In some cases, we will never know how the spread occurred.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: There is one point that has not been raised about the amendment. It says:
	"The Minister, or any persons acting on his behalf".
	Some of the contractors who were operating were fairly dodgy. It was not necessarily officials working directly for the Minister but people contracted by the Minister who caused the problems. There are instances of contractors throwing gloves into the hedge, where they were found by other people. The controls on contractors leave a lot to be desired.

The Countess of Mar: At a later stage, we could impose a duty on the Minister to ensure that all his contractors understand the need for biosecurity. That would ensure that everybody knew what they were supposed to do. If they deliberately infringed those requirements, they could be punished.

Baroness Byford: I thank everybody who has contributed. I may return with an improved amendment. The Minister and all who help and support him might consider producing an even better amendment. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Prosecutions: time limit]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 312:
	Page 9, line 31, leave out "an" and insert "any"

Baroness Byford: This amendment deals with just a typo error. I think that line 31 should say "any", but I may be wrong. I shall allow the Minister to respond. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Legal proceedings are started in court by laying an information—a document. Changing the phrase would mean that we would lose the specific legal meaning. There has been a misunderstanding behind the laying of the amendment.

Baroness Byford: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 313 and 314 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 315:
	Page 10, line 7, leave out "conclusive" and insert "reasonable"

Baroness Byford: The Government have been delighted with the amount of reasonableness in the Chamber in the past two days. I understand that the word "conclusive" in this clause means "cannot be challenged".
	It is conceivable that a reasonable challenge could be made, especially if the prosecutor is a corporate entity—for example, the Crown Prosecution Service. It is unreasonable that someone accused of an offence should have to cope with delays that are not of his or her making. That could apply to the gathering of sufficient evidence for a prosecution if the prosecutor has given an outline of the case but it takes several weeks or months for the file to be assembled.
	How do the Government envisage that prosecutions will be handled? Will the local or regional inspector produce a summary of events, as he or his staff recall them, and hand the matter over to the local police? Will they call in the CPS? Will the department initiate events, call for local evidence and use its own legal staff in local courts? Will it use the CPS? If the CPS is to be involved, has the Minister received adequate evidence that CPS record-keeping is of a sufficient standard to comply with the clause on all occasions and with total accuracy? Is he prepared to share that evidence with the Committee? I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Certification by a magistrate of the date on which evidence was brought to his attention is a well-precedented procedure. If the court were uneasy with the certification of the prosecutor and believed it had been made in bad faith, it would be able to consider the evidence behind it even though it had the status of conclusive proof. Therefore we need to resist the amendment. In moving the amendment the noble Baroness asked many technical legal questions on which I should prefer to write to her.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am content that she writes to me when she has had a look at the detailed questions I asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Commencement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 316 to 318 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 319:
	Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) This Act shall not come into force until parallel powers have been taken to cover all parts of the United Kingdom."

Baroness Byford: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jopling who could not be with us, I move Amendment No. 319. It is extremely important. When speaking of disease outbreaks we have spoken of what happens on borders; between Scotland and England and England and Wales. I should like to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Baroness. Foot and mouth disease does not respect boundaries drawn by humans. Nor, for that matter, do animals. It is a particularly valid point with regard to the boundary between England and Scotland. I am not so sure about Northern Ireland; there is a slight difference because of the sea boundary. But where animals can roam across moors, as they do between England and Scotland, we have a problem.

Lord Greaves: I agree with the noble Countess that there are problems with boundaries where devolved administrations have powers that may lead them to different solutions from those that this Parliament decides should apply in England. But—and it is a big "but"—if we have a devolved administration in Scotland which has power over farming matters that in England are the responsibility of DEFRA, we have to accept the consequences. There will be different policies in Scotland from those that apply in England; that is a fact of life in respect of devolution.
	Some Members of the Committee may still be unhappy with devolution and feel it should be abolished. Some of us are happy with it and envious of some of the things happening in Scotland as a result, but that is a different matter. The contrast between the way foot and mouth disease was dealt with in south-west Scotland and north Cumbria, which on the face of it began in a similar way, is fairly stark. It can be argued that the devolved administration in Scotland did a better job than the non-devolved administration in London with regard to Cumbria. Some of us would be happy to make that case.
	However, whatever we think about the Bill—whether or not it is the right approach to controlling future outbreaks; whether many of the powers in it are too draconian; whether the criticisms many of us are making of it are right or wrong—no one can argue that we do not need preparations and contingency plans for dealing with future outbreaks. To suggest that the contingency plans in England should be put on hold because Scotland will not be having identical or parallel plans—I am not sure what "parallel" means here but I take it to mean "very similar"—seems illogical. There may be problems at the Border, but if there is a problem in Scotland because it does not have plans, that is not a reason for not introducing plans in England. We may disagree about the nature of those plans, but that is a different argument altogether. This is one issue in the Bill on which I disagree with the noble Baroness, with whom I have been agreeing so much during the past two days.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Perhaps I may underline what my noble friend said. As one who has been involved with Wales for a very long time—I am a native of Wales—I should like to give notice that at Report stage I shall certainly urge that the National Assembly for Wales should have more powers to deal with outbreaks. The powers it receives may be parallel to those powers in England but I should like to draw a contrast. As the noble Countess said, the fact that the disease knows no boundaries is important, but nevertheless strategies ought to be available in devolved administrations for tackling the particular circumstances which may arise in their jurisdictions. Wales, for example, has far more sheep than there are in the whole of Scotland.
	Those powers should be devolved within an overall umbrella and a strategy should be worked out to overcome some of the problems. Certainly the way the hefting of sheep on the hills in Wales was tackled during the recent foot and mouth outbreak gives a lot of food for thought. I know that there were some disagreements between the administration in Cardiff and DEFRA—or MAFF, as it was at the time. These difficulties can be overcome. We can live with devolved administrations having appropriate powers, particularly in relation to strategies on how they will tackle these problems within their own boundaries.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that at this time, in this position, at this stage in the Bill—and given that we are all aware that discussions take place on the potential transfer of functions, not least in the field of agriculture—I am not being drawn into doing anything other than noting his views on the issue of future powers which may or may not be devolved to the National Assembly.
	I agree with most of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Animal health is a devolved subject in Scotland and Northern Ireland and it is only proper that they should be able to bring forward further legislation that they consider appropriate under the timetables and procedures of the relative legislatures. Scottish Ministers have stated that they support the principle of new legislation on disease control.
	However, were there to be a new outbreak of foot and mouth disease or another serious animal disease, I would expect—and I am sure noble Lords, including the noble Countess, Lady Mar, would expect—Scottish Ministers to review the situation urgently and consider bringing forward any appropriate emergency legislation they felt was in order.
	For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I resist the amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept that, under the devolution settlement, this is a matter for the devolved administrations.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I do not know whether she was aware of it, but towards the end of her reply she quoted from a Written Answer which was sent to my noble friend Lord Peel on 28th January 2002. She quoted almost exactly the last paragraph of the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
	My noble friend Lord Peel wrote to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they were taking to persuade the Scottish Executive to introduce, in the near future, legislation with regard to controlling foot and mouth disease in order to safeguard the position in England. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replied—I am sure that he remembers this off the top of his head, but let me help him at this time of night—that animal health is a devolved matter in Scotland. We do not argue with that. The letter continued:
	"Scottish Ministers have stated that they support the principle of new legislation on disease control, and propose to take this forward under the timetable and procedures of the Scottish Parliament".
	The part of the letter that the noble Baroness did not refer to is,
	"I understand that Scottish Ministers hope to issue a consultation on proposed legislative changes shortly".
	My noble friend's concern is that that letter was dated 28th January. Here we are, nearly eight months later, and my understanding is that no consultation has been put in hand at all. That is a matter for concern.
	I realise and appreciate the Government's position—it is a devolved matter—but I hope that before we meet again on the Bill the Government south of the Border will draw the time lag to the attention of their colleagues north of the Border. Animal disease knows no boundary and it seems slightly irresponsible to make no moves on the issue.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Speaking as I do for the Government on matters affecting Wales, I should hesitate to be drawn down the road referred to by the noble Baroness. I am sure that responsible Ministers and Members of devolved administrations are quite capable of taking on board and working out the points that she raises.
	It would be singularly inappropriate for me, speaking on behalf of the Government with regard to a devolved matter, to seek to imply that I knew better than Ministers within a devolved administration. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who watches me like a hawk or a peregrine falcon on these issues, approves of my remarks so I shall not say anything else.

Baroness Byford: I do not think that I encouraged the noble Baroness to do exactly what she said she would not do. That was not my intention. However, I am concerned. This is a serious point. We have to consider animal disease control; yet some parts of the United Kingdom may be considering it in a different way, or not at all. The matter is worth raising. Sending a copy of Hansard to the relevant Members of the Scottish Parliament might go some way in nudging this important issue along. But at this stage, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jopling, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 agreed to.

Baroness Byford: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 320:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
	"INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY
	(1) No provisions of this Act shall come into force prior to the publication of the findings of an independent public inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
	(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Minister from taking emergency powers necessary in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, or any other specified disease, before the coming into force of this Act."

Baroness Byford: Perhaps at this stage I may recall our consistent concern that no independent inquiry has been held. However, as events have now overtaken the Bill, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
	Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.